Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  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