From: | Wes <wespvp(at)msg(dot)bt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com>, Craig White <craigwhite(at)azapple(dot)com>, pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mark Niedzielski <min(at)epictechnologies(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance |
Date: | 2007-11-26 23:37:50 |
Message-ID: | C370B4EE.69D63%wespvp@msg.bt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/13/07 10:02 AM, "Scott Ribe" <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com> wrote:
> What you're referring to must be that the kernel was essentially
> single-threaded, with a single "kernel-funnel" lock. (Because the OS
> certainly supported threads, and it was certainly possible to write
> highly-threaded applications, and I don't know of any performance problems
> with threaded applications.)
>
> This has been getting progressively better, with each release adding more
> in-kernel concurrency. Which means that 10.5 probably obsoletes all prior
> postgres benchmarks on OS X.
While I've never seen this documented anywhere, it empirically looks like
10.5 also (finally) adds CPU affinity to better utilize instruction caching.
On a dual CPU system under 10.4, one CPU bound process would use two CPU's
at 50%. Under 10.5 it uses one CPU at 100%.
I never saw any resolution to this thread - were the original tests on the
Opteron and OS X identical, or were they two different workloads?
Wes
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alex Vinogradovs | 2007-11-27 00:01:19 | Rules slower than Dynamic SQL ? |
Previous Message | Tom Hart | 2007-11-26 23:24:40 | Re: speed up insert query |