| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | <david(at)lang(dot)hm>,"Steve Clark" <sclark(at)netwolves(dot)com>, "Glyn Astill" <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Date: | 2011-04-12 16:40:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4DA43A2B020000250003C702@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> Results from Greg Smiths stream_scaling test are here:
>
> http://www.privatepaste.com/4338aa1196
Well, that pretty much clinches it. Your RAM access tops out at 16
processors. It appears that your processors are spending most of
their time waiting for and contending for the RAM bus.
I have gotten machines in where moving a jumper, flipping a DIP
switch, or changing BIOS options from the default made a big
difference. I'd be looking at the manuals for my motherboard and
BIOS right now to see what options there might be to improve that.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2011-04-12 16:43:55 | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Previous Message | Ogden | 2011-04-12 16:36:19 | Performance |