Thread: Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database (required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server. They are insistent on Dell. I have personal experience with AMD dual Opteron, but I have not seen any benchmarks on Intel's dual core Xeon. I've seen in the past Dell and not performed well as well as Xeon's HT issues. Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core CPUs and/or Dell's new servers? I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD Opeteron-based server. Thanks. Steve Poe
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:02, Steve Poe wrote: > I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database > (required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server. > They are insistent on Dell. Do they have a logical reason for this, or is it mostly hand-waving? My experience has been hand waving. Last company I was at, the CIO bragged about having saved a million a year on server by going with Dell. His numbers were made up, and, in fact, we spent a large portion of each week babysitting those god awful 2600 series machines with adaptec cards and the serverworks chipset. And they were slow compared to anything else with similar specs. > I have personal experience with AMD dual Opteron, but I have not seen > any benchmarks on Intel's dual core Xeon. I've seen in the past Dell and > not performed well as well as Xeon's HT issues. Dells tend to perform poorly, period. They choose low end parts (the 2600's Serverworks chipset is widely regarded as one of the slowest chipset for the P-IV there is.) and then mucking around with the BIOS of the add in cards to make them somewhat stable with their dodgy hardware. > Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core > CPUs and/or Dell's new servers? Haven't used the dual core Dells. Latest ones I've used are the dual Xeon 2850 machines, which are at least stable, if still pretty pokey. > I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD > Opeteron-based server. Let's just hope Dell hasn't spent all this time hamstringing a good chip with low end, underperforming hardware, eh? My suggestion is to look at something like this: http://www.abmx.com/1u-supermicro-amd-opteron-rackmount-server-p-210.html 1U rackmount opteron from Supermicro that can have two dual core opterons and 4 drives and up to 16 gigs of ram. Supermicro server motherboards have always treated me well and performed well too.
steve.poe@gmail.com (Steve Poe) writes: > I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database > (required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server. > They are insistent on Dell. Then they're being insistent on poor performance. If you search for "dell postgresql performance" you'll find plenty of examples of people who have been disappointed when they insisted on Dell for PostgreSQL. Here is a *long* thread on the matter... <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-12/msg00022.php> > I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD > Opeteron-based server. Based on Dell's history, I would neither: a) Hold my breath, nor b) Expect an Opteron-based Dell server to perform as well as seemingly-equivalent servers provisioned by other vendors. We got burned by some Celestica-built Opterons that didn't turn out quite as hoped. We have had somewhat better results with some HP Opterons; they appear to be surviving less-than-ideal 3rd world data centre situations with reasonable aplomb. (Based on the amount of dust in their diet, I'm somewhat surprised the disk drives are still running...) -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;; http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html We are Pentium of Borg. Division is futile. You will be approximated. (seen in someone's .signature)
>My suggestion is to look at something like this: > >http://www.abmx.com/1u-supermicro-amd-opteron-rackmount-server-p-210.html > >1U rackmount opteron from Supermicro that can have two dual core >opterons and 4 drives and up to 16 gigs of ram. Supermicro server >motherboards have always treated me well and performed well too. > > I've had good experience with similar machines from Tyan : http://www.tyan.com/products/html/gt24b2891.html
David Boreham wrote: > > >My suggestion is to look at something like this: > > > >http://www.abmx.com/1u-supermicro-amd-opteron-rackmount-server-p-210.html > > > >1U rackmount opteron from Supermicro that can have two dual core > >opterons and 4 drives and up to 16 gigs of ram. Supermicro server > >motherboards have always treated me well and performed well too. > > > > > I've had good experience with similar machines from Tyan : > http://www.tyan.com/products/html/gt24b2891.html In fact I think Tyan makes the Supermicro motherboards. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:02, Steve Poe wrote:
>> I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database
>> (required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server.
>> They are insistent on Dell.
>
> Do they have a logical reason for this, or is it mostly hand-waving?
They probably do. They have probably standardized on Dell hardware. It
is technically a dumb reason, but from a business standpoint it makes sense.
My
> experience has been hand waving. Last company I was at, the CIO bragged
> about having saved a million a year on server by going with Dell. His
> numbers were made up, and, in fact, we spent a large portion of each
> week babysitting those god awful 2600 series machines with adaptec cards
> and the serverworks chipset. And they were slow compared to anything
> else with similar specs.
You can get extremely competitive quotes from IBM or HP as long as you
say, "You are competing against Dell".
> Dells tend to perform poorly, period. They choose low end parts (the
> 2600's Serverworks chipset is widely regarded as one of the slowest
> chipset for the P-IV there is.) and then mucking around with the BIOS of
> the add in cards to make them somewhat stable with their dodgy hardware.
I can confirm this.
>> I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD
>> Opeteron-based server.
Tell them to go with an HP DL 385. They will be much happier.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of > Joshua D. Drake > Sent: 13 June 2006 20:44 > To: Scott Marlowe > Cc: steve.poe@gmail.com; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql? > > They probably do. They have probably standardized on Dell > hardware. It > is technically a dumb reason, but from a business standpoint > it makes sense. We use Dell here for those reasons these days, but thankfully are able to suitably overspec everything to allow for significant growth and any minor performance issues that they may have (we've never seen any though). In Dell's defence we've never had a single problem with the 2850's or 1850's we're running which have all been rock solid. They also have excellent OOB management in their DRAC cards - far better than that in the slightly older Intel boxes we also run. That is a big selling point for us. > You can get extremely competitive quotes from IBM or HP as > long as you > say, "You are competing against Dell". Dell beat them hands down in our experience - and yes, we have had numerous quotes for HP and IBM kit, each of them knowing they are competing against Dell. > > Dells tend to perform poorly, period. They choose low end > parts (the > > 2600's Serverworks chipset is widely regarded as one of the slowest > > chipset for the P-IV there is.) and then mucking around > with the BIOS of > > the add in cards to make them somewhat stable with their > dodgy hardware. > > I can confirm this. And how old are the 2600's now? Anyhoo, I'm not saying the current machines are excellent performers or anything, but there are good business reasons to run them if you don't need to squeeze out every last pony. Regards, Dave.
On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:44:17PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > You can get extremely competitive quotes from IBM or HP as long as you > say, "You are competing against Dell". Possibly even more competitive from Sun... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Dave, Joshua, Scott (and all), Thanks for your feedback, while I do appreciate it, I did not intent on making this discussion "buy this instead"...I whole-heartly agree with you. Joshua, you made the best comment, it is a business decision for the client. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I've recommended Sun or Penguin Computing which I've had no technical issues with. They did not dispute my recommendation but they ignored it. I have not like Dell, on the server side, since 1998 - 2000 time period. Excluding Dell's issues, has anyone seen performance differences between AMD's Opteron and Intel's new Xeon's (dual or quad CPU or dual-core). If anyone has done benchmark comparisons between them, any summary information would be appreciated. For now, I am asking the client to hold-off and wait for the AMD Opteron availability on the Dell servers. Thanks again. Steve
On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:11, Dave Page wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > And how old are the 2600's now? > > Anyhoo, I'm not saying the current machines are excellent performers or > anything, but there are good business reasons to run them if you don't > need to squeeze out every last pony. Just thought I'd point you to Dell's forums. http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board?board.id=pes_linux&page=1 wherein you'll find plenty of folks who have problems with freezing RAID controllers with 28xx and 18xx machines.
From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe@g2switchworks.com]
Sent: 14 June 2006 18:04
To: Dave Page
Cc: Joshua D. Drake; steve.poe@gmail.com; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:11, Dave Page wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> And how old are the 2600's now?
>
> Anyhoo, I'm not saying the current machines are excellent performers or
> anything, but there are good business reasons to run them if you don't
> need to squeeze out every last pony.
Just thought I'd point you to Dell's forums.
http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board?board.id=pes_linux&page=1
wherein you'll find plenty of folks who have problems with freezing RAID
controllers with 28xx and 18xx machines.
<shrug>Never had any such problems in the dozen or so machines we run (about a 50-50 split of Linux to Windows).
Regards, Dave
On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 13:43, Dave Page wrote: > > > Just thought I'd point you to Dell's forums. > > http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board?board.id=pes_linux&page=1 > > wherein you'll find plenty of folks who have problems with > freezing RAID > controllers with 28xx and 18xx machines. > > > <shrug>Never had any such problems in the dozen or so machines we run > (about a 50-50 split of Linux to Windows). > > Regards, Dave > Yeah, We've got a mix of 2650 and 2850s, and our 2850s have been rock solid stable, unlike the 2650s. I was actually kinda surprised to see how many people have problems with the 2850s. Apparently, the 2850 mobos have a built in RAID that's pretty stable (it's got a PERC number I can't remembeR), but ordering them with an add on Perc RAID controller appears to make them somewhat unstable as well. On recommendation I've seen repeatedly is to use the --noapic option at boot time. Just FYI
> -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:smarlowe@g2switchworks.com] > Sent: 14 June 2006 20:52 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Joshua D. Drake; steve.poe@gmail.com; > pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql? > > > Yeah, We've got a mix of 2650 and 2850s, and our 2850s have been rock > solid stable, unlike the 2650s. I was actually kinda surprised to see > how many people have problems with the 2850s. > > Apparently, the 2850 mobos have a built in RAID that's pretty stable > (it's got a PERC number I can't remembeR), but ordering them > with an add > on Perc RAID controller appears to make them somewhat > unstable as well. That might be it - we always chose the onboard PERC because it has twice the cache of the other options. Regards, Dave.
On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Steve Poe wrote: > > Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core > CPUs and/or Dell's new servers? I'm one of the few Dell fans around here... but I must say that I don't buy them for my big DB servers specifically since they don't currently ship Opteron based systems. (I did call and thank my sales rep for pushing my case for them to do Opterons, though, since I'm sure they are doing it as a personal favor to me :-) ) I just put up a pentium-D dual-core based system and it is pretty wickedly fast. it only has a pair of SATA drives on it and is used for pre-production testing. > > I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD > Opeteron-based server. Don't wait. It will be *months* before that happens. Go get a Sun X4100 and an external RAID array and be happy. These boxes are an amazing work of engineering.
Attachment
Vivek, Thanks for your feedback. Which Dell server did you purchase? The client has a PowerEdge 2600 and they STILL want Dell. Again, if it were my pocketbook, Dell would not be there. The client has a 30GB DB. This is large for me, but probably not with you. Also, I am advising the client to go to a 10+ disc array (from 3) and enough RAM to load half the DB into memory. Steve On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 12:22 -0400, Vivek Khera wrote: > On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Steve Poe wrote: > > > > > Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core > > CPUs and/or Dell's new servers? > > I'm one of the few Dell fans around here... but I must say that I > don't buy them for my big DB servers specifically since they don't > currently ship Opteron based systems. (I did call and thank my sales > rep for pushing my case for them to do Opterons, though, since I'm > sure they are doing it as a personal favor to me :-) ) > > I just put up a pentium-D dual-core based system and it is pretty > wickedly fast. it only has a pair of SATA drives on it and is used > for pre-production testing. > > > > > I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD > > Opeteron-based server. > > Don't wait. It will be *months* before that happens. Go get a Sun > X4100 and an external RAID array and be happy. These boxes are an > amazing work of engineering. >
On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Steve Poe wrote: > Vivek, > > Thanks for your feedback. Which Dell server did you purchase? I have many many dell rackmounts: 1550, 1650, 1750, 1850, and SC1425 and throw in a couple of 2450. I *really* like the 1850 with built-in SCSI RAID. It is fast enough to be a replica of my primary bread and butter database running on a beefy opteron system (using Slony-1 replication). The SC1425 boxes make for good, cheap web front end servers. We buy 'em in pairs and load balance them at the network layer using CARP. At the office we have mostly SC400 series (400, 420, and 430) for our servers. The latest box is an SC430 with dual core pentium D and dual SATA drives running software mirror. It pushes over 20MB/s on the disks, which is pretty impressive for the hardware. > > The client has a PowerEdge 2600 and they STILL want Dell. Again, if it > were my pocketbook, Dell would not be there. I lucked out and skipped the 2650 line, apparently :-) I used the 2450's as my DB servers and they were barely adequate once we got beyond our startup phase, and moving them over to Opteron was a godsend. I tried some small opteron systems vendor but had QC issues (1 of 5 systems stable), so went with Sun and have not looked back. I still buy Dell's for all other server purposes mainly because it is convenient in terms of purchasing and getting support (ie, business reasons). And I don't spend all my time babysitting these boxes, like others imply. > > The client has a 30GB DB. This is large for me, but probably not with > you. Also, I am advising the client to go to a 10+ disc array (from 3) > and enough RAM to load half the DB into memory. 30GB DB on a 10 disk array seems overkill, considering that the smallest disks you're going to get will be 36GB (or perhaps 72Gb by now).