Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with

From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>
To: Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>
Cc: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with
Date: 2006-09-08 16:18:50
Message-ID: 450197EA.7040900@kaltenbrunner.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> On 8-9-2006 15:01 Dave Cramer wrote:
>>
>>> But then again, systems with the Woodcrest 5150 (the subtop one) and
>>> Opteron 280 (also the subtop one) are about equal in price, so its
>>> not a bad comparison in a bang-for-bucks point of view. The Dempsey
>>> was added to show how both the Opteron and the newer Woodcrest would
>>> compete against that one.
>>
>> Did I read this correctly that one of the Opterons in the test only
>> had 4G of ram vs 7 G in the Intel boxes ? If so this is a severely
>> limiting factor for postgresql at least?
>
> Actually, its not in this benchmark. Its not a large enough dataset to
> put any pressure on IO, not even with just 2GB of memory.

interesting - so this is a mostly CPU-bound benchmark ?
Out of curiousity have you done any profiling on the databases under
test to see where they are spending their time ?

Stefan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Davis 2006-09-08 16:19:00 Re: Performance in a 7 TB database.
Previous Message Arjen van der Meijden 2006-09-08 16:01:31 Re: Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with