From: | Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |
Date: | 2012-10-11 14:40:14 |
Message-ID: | 5076DA4E.80504@opinioni.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 10/11/2012 04:19 PM, Claudio Freire wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net> wrote:
>> sorry to come late to the party, but being in a similar condition
>> I've googled a bit and I've found a way to disable hyperthreading without
>> the need to reboot the system and entering the bios:
>>
>> echo 0 >/sys/devices/system/node/node0/cpuX/online
>>
>> where X belongs to 1..(#cores * 2) if hyperthreading is enabled
>> (cpu0 can't be switched off).
>>
>> didn't try myself on live system, but I definitely will
>> as soon as I have a new machine to test.
>
> Question is... will that remove the performance penalty of HyperThreading?
So I've added to my todo list to perform a test to verify this claim :)
> I don't think so, because a big one is the register file split (half
> the hardware registers go to a CPU, half to the other). If that action
> doesn't tell the CPU to "unsplit", some shared components may become
> unbogged, like the decode stage probably, but I'm not sure it's the
> same as disabling it from the BIOS.
Although I think that you're probably right to assume that disabling HT
through the syfs interface won't remove the performance penalty for real.
thanks
Andrea
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Korisk | 2012-10-11 15:15:13 | Re: hash aggregation |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2012-10-11 14:19:33 | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |