From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)amber(dot)org> |
Cc: | Steve Wolfe <nw(at)codon(dot)com>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question on Opteron performance |
Date: | 2004-03-11 16:53:51 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0403110952380.11329-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Christopher Petrilli wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2004, at 3:14 PM, Steve Wolfe wrote:
>
> > Before I shell out the $15k on the 4-way Opteron, I'm going to spend
> > some long, hard time looking for ways to make the system more
> > efficient.
> > However, after all that's already been done, I'm not optimistic that
> > it's
> > going to preclude needing the new server. I'm just surprised that
> > nobody
> > seems to have used PostgreSQL on a quad-Opteron before!
>
> Well, I haven't had a chance to run PostgreSQL on a quad-Opteron box,
> but in discussing this with someone building a cluster out of them,
> their experience is that they are seeing better performance out of a
> quad-Opteron than a 3Ghz Xeon box (quad as well), which they believe
> reflects superior memory architecture. So, if someone has run on a
> quad-Xeon of similar "specs", then I would imagine you should see
> similar, if not better, numbers.
This article:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982
seems to support that view that opterons currently scale better than
Xeons.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Paolo Tavalazzi | 2004-03-11 16:53:53 | Re: postgres FROM clause problem |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-03-11 16:26:15 | Re: "make check" fails for 7.4.2 checked out from CVS |