Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance
Date: 2012-10-15 15:34:39
Message-ID: CAOR=d=02vBk24Mt7cJd9SBxjAcL26Ao=N_8o7ZxB-qe0VW1T8A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net> wrote:
>> sure you're right.
>>
>> It's just that my bet was on a higher throughput
>> when HT was isabled from the BIOS (as you stated
>> previously in this thread).
>
> Yes, mine too. It's bizarre. If I were you, I'd look into it more
> deeply. It may be a flaw in your test methodology (maybe you disabled
> the wrong cores?). If not, it would be good to know why the extra TPS
> to replicate elsewhere.

I'd recommend more synthetic benchmarks when trying to compare systems
like this. bonnie++, the memory stream test that Greg Smith was
working on, and so on. Get an idea what core differences the machines
display under such testing.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrea Suisani 2012-10-15 15:45:24 Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance
Previous Message Scott Marlowe 2012-10-15 15:32:45 Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance