On 02/25/2017 08:33 AM, Arya F wrote:
> I was shopping around for a dedicated server and I noticed a plan which
> uses 2X Cavium ThunderX processors which gives me a total of 96 cores.
>
> I use PostgreSQL + PgBouncer which accepts many connections at a time. I
> have my current one to accept maximum connections of 1000, but it never
> goes above 200 active connections but the traffic to the system is
> always increasing and I want to have the hardware to handle it.
>
> It's the first time I see the Cavium ThunderX name. How do these compare
> to a machine that has 2 × E5-2640 v3? I noticed the Cavium ThunderX is a
> lot cheaper, but it's not a known name.
Probably because it is an ARM processor trying to break into the high
end server market. A search on Cavium ThunderX found a lot of
references. The most recent benchmark I could find was:
https://www.servethehome.com/exclusive-first-cavium-thunderx-dual-48-core-96-core-total-arm-benchmarks/
>
> What would I get better results with 2X Cavium ThunderX processors with
> 96 cores or 2 × E5-2640 v3 with 16 cores?
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
