On 12 Jun 2006, at 00:21, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Mario Splivalo wrote:
>> On Sat, 2006-06-03 at 11:43 +0200, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 10:31:03AM +0100, fzied@planet.tn wrote:
>>>> I do have 2 identical beasts (4G - biproc Xeon 3.2 - 2 Gig NIC)
>>>> One beast will be apache, and the other will be postgres.
>>>> I'm using httperf/autobench for measurments and the best result
>>>> I can get is that my system can handle a trafiic of almost 1600
>>>> New con/sec.
>>> What version of PostgreSQL? (8.1 is better than 8.0 is much
>>> better than 7.4.)
>>> Have you remembered to turn HT off? Have you considered Opterons
>>> instead of
>>> Xeons? (The Xeons generally scale bad with PostgreSQL.) What kind
>>> of queries
>> Could you point out to some more detailed reading on why Xeons are
>> poorer choice than Opterons when used with PostgreSQL?
>
> It isn't just PostgreSQL. It is any database. Opterons can move
> memory and whole lot faster then Xeons.
A whole lot faster indeed.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/
0,,30_118_8796_8799,00.html
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10797
Although apparently the dual core ones are a little better than the
old ones
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2644
(Just to provide some evidence ;)
