| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, "Graeme B(dot) Bell" <grb(at)skogoglandskap(dot)no> |
| Subject: | Re: Turn off Hyperthreading! WAS: 60 core performance with 9.3 |
| Date: | 2014-08-25 22:13:59 |
| Message-ID: | 53FBB527.9030007@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 08/22/2014 07:02 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-08-21 14:02:26 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> On 08/20/2014 07:40 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>> Not sure how you can make such a blanket statement when so many people
>>> have tested and shown the benefits of hyper-threading.
>>
>> Actually, I don't know that anyone has posted the benefits of HT.
>> Link?
>
> There's definitely cases where it can help. But it's highly workload
> *and* hardware dependent.
The only cases I've seen where HT can be beneficial is when you have
large numbers of idle connections. Then the idle connections can be
"parked" on the HT virtual cores. However, even in this case I haven't
seen a head-to-head performance comparison.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-08-26 01:51:35 | Re: tuning postgresql 9.3.5 and multiple cores |
| Previous Message | Rich | 2014-08-25 20:26:57 | From: Rich |