On 26/08/14 10:13, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 08/22/2014 07:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> On 2014-08-21 14:02:26 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> On 08/20/2014 07:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>>> Not sure how you can make such a blanket statement when so many people
>>>> have tested and shown the benefits of hyper-threading.
>>>
>>> Actually, I don't know that anyone has posted the benefits of HT.
>>> Link?
>>
>> There's definitely cases where it can help. But it's highly workload
>> *and* hardware dependent.
>
> The only cases I've seen where HT can be beneficial is when you have
> large numbers of idle connections. Then the idle connections can be
> "parked" on the HT virtual cores. However, even in this case I haven't
> seen a head-to-head performance comparison.
>
I've just had a pair of Crucial m550's arrive, so a bit of benchmarking
is in order. The results (below) seem to suggest that HT enabled is
certainly not inhibiting scaling performance for single socket i7's. I
performed several runs (typical results shown below).
Intel i7-4770 3.4 Ghz, 16G
2x Crucial m550
Ubuntu 14.04
Postgres 9.4 beta2
logging_collector = on
max_connections = 600
shared_buffers = 1GB
wal_buffers = 32MB
checkpoint_segments = 128
effective_cache_size = 10GB
pgbench scale = 300
test duration (each) = 600s
db on 1x m550
xlog on 1x m550
clients | tps (HT)| tps (no HT)
--------+----------+-------------
4 | 517 | 520
8 | 1013 | 999
16 | 1938 | 1913
32 | 3574 | 3560
64 | 5873 | 5412
128 | 8351 | 7450
256 | 9426 | 7840
512 | 9357 | 7288
Regards
Mark
