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
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 |