| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Date: | 2011-04-11 20:52:39 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=zS8Lxutk_4n_i=Bgx8B+BuWVPTQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> A wild guess is something like multiple cores contending for cpu cache, cpu affinity, or some kind of contention in the kernel, alas a little out of my depth.
>
> It's pretty sickening to think I can't get anything else out of more than 8 cores.
Have you tried running the memory stream benchmark Greg Smith had
posted here a while back? It'll let you know if you're memory is
bottlenecking. Right now my 48 core machines are the king of that
benchmark with something like 70+Gig a second.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-04-11 21:06:53 | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |
| Previous Message | James Cloos | 2011-04-11 20:39:46 | Re: Linux: more cores = less concurrency. |