| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: hardware advice |
| Date: | 2012-09-27 21:39:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=3qhRGyub0H9eFm+9KPYoa_YkA1U1+Fy_4qyokK8ztWaA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Conversely, we often got MUCH better parallel performance from our
> quad 12 core opteron servers than I could get on a dual 8 core xeon at
> the time.
Clarification that the two base machines were about the same price.
48 opteron cores (2.2GHz) or 16 xeon cores at ~2.6GHz. It's been a
few years, I'm not gonna testify to the exact numbers in court. But
the performance to 32 to 100 threads was WAY better on the 48 core
opteron machine, never really breaking down even to 120+ threads. The
Intel machine hit a very real knee of performance and dropped off
really badly after about 40 threads (they were hyperthreaded).
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Evgeny Shishkin | 2012-09-27 21:40:06 | Re: hardware advice |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2012-09-27 21:36:35 | Re: hardware advice |