When i question about WAL, i mean if WAL is in other drive.
You must run a benchmark more expensive to cpu for make a conclusion.
Make a query that have more of 8 seconds, then you can see really if
exists a diference
in other way... i think you don't use the same image of the old server
in the new.
In that way could be a configuration kernel.
do you make a test of hardware instead postgres?? if the hard give you
better numbers, so postgres have
the problem.
2008/10/10 Shane Ambler <pgsql@sheeky.biz>:
> Bart Grantham wrote:
>>
>> a long story short: we're experiencing Xeons as 50% slower than
>> Opterons, even when the Xeon has twice as much cache and a slight
>> clock speed advantage.
>
>> tests I finally took the final leap: just pull the disks and throw
>> them in a newer Opteron chassis (2.8GHz, 1M cache). And whaddya
>> know? It's got a 20% speed edge on the older Opteron, and blows away
>> the performance of the newer Xeons.
>
> But is the difference in cpu or disk?
>
> Do the two machines get a similar disk transfer rate?
>
> Same raid card and disks in both machines, do they get the same MB/Sec?
> (as opposed to on-board controllers)
>
>
>
> --
>
> Shane Ambler
> pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz
>
> Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
