Re: Value of Quad vs. Dual Processor machine

From: fred(at)redhotpenguin(dot)com
To: "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>
Cc: "Rod Taylor" <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>, cfield(at)affinitysolutions(dot)com, "Postgresql Performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Value of Quad vs. Dual Processor machine
Date: 2003-11-12 01:11:20
Message-ID: 53970.127.0.0.1.1068599480.squirrel@127.0.0.1
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Rod Taylor wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 18:32, Chris Field wrote:
>> > We are getting ready to spec out a new machine and are wondering about
>> > the wisdom of buying a quad versus a dual processor machine. Seing as
>> > how postgres in not a threaded application, and this server will only
>> be
>> > used for log/transaction analysis (it will only ever have a few large
>> > queries running). Is there any performance to be gained, and if so is
>> > it worth the large cost? Any thoughts/experience are much
>> > appreciated...
>>
>> Since you're asking the question, I'll assume you don't have CPU
>> intensive queries or monstrous loads.
>>
>> I'd probably invest in a Quad system with 2 chips in it (2 empty
>> sockets) and put the difference in funds into a few extra GB of Ram or
>> improved IO.
>>
>> In 6 months or a year, if you start doing longer or more complex
>> queries, toss in the other 2 chips. So long as you don't hit a memory
>> limit, it'll be fine.
>
> Note that you want to carefully look at the difference in cost of the
> motherboard versus the CPUs. It's often the motherboard that raises the
> cost, not the CPUs so much. Although with Xeons, the CPUs are not cheap.
>
> The second issue is that Intel (and AMD probably) only guarantee proper
> performance from chips int he same batch, so you may wind up replacing the
> two working CPUs with two new ones to go with the other two you'll be
> buying, to make sure that they work together.
>
> My guess is that more CPUs aren't gonna help this problem a lot, so look
> more at fast RAM and lots of it, as well as a fast I/O subsystem.
>
> 2 CPUs should be plenty.
I agree that the additional cpus won't help as much since I haven't found
any benefits in terms of individual query speed for a quad vs. an smp on
benchmarks I've run on test machines I was considering purchasing. Quads
are also expensive - on similar architectures the quad was 20k vs 7k for
the dual.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ron Johnson 2003-11-12 01:24:51 Re: Value of Quad vs. Dual Processor machine
Previous Message Allan Wind 2003-11-12 01:02:40 Re: Value of Quad vs. Dual Processor machine