From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Status of Opteron vs Xeon |
Date: | 2005-10-07 18:44:37 |
Message-ID: | 6429.1128710677@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> writes:
> jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com (Jeff Frost) writes:
>> What's the current status of how much faster the Opteron is compared
>> to the Xeons? I know the Opterons used to be close to 2x faster,
>> but is that still the case? I understand much work has been done to
>> reduce the contect switching storms on the Xeon architecture, is
>> this correct?
> Work has gone into 8.1 to try to help with the context switch storms;
> that doesn't affect previous versions.
Also note that we've found that the current coding of the TAS macro
seems to be very bad for at least some Opterons --- they do much better
if the "pre-test" cmpb is removed. But this is not true for all x86_64
chips. We still have an open issue about what to do about this.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-10-07 18:51:36 | Re: wal_buffers |
Previous Message | Chris Browne | 2005-10-07 17:33:28 | Re: Status of Opteron vs Xeon |