| From: | Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?) |
| Date: | 2005-04-20 06:21:32 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.62.0504192315410.21883@discord.dyndns.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
> I don't know about 2.5x faster (perhaps on specific types of loads), but the
> reason Opterons rock for database applications is their insanely good memory
> bandwidth and latency that scales much better than the Xeon. Opterons also
> have a ccNUMA-esque I/O fabric and two dedicated on-die memory channels *per
> processor* -- no shared bus there, closer to real UNIX server iron than a
> glorified PC.
Thanks J! That's exactly what I was suspecting it might be. Actually, I
found an anandtech benchmark that shows the Opteron coming in at close to 2.0x
performance:
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=2
It's an Opteron 150 (2.4ghz) vs. Xeon 3.6ghz from August. I wonder if the
differences are more pronounced with the newer Opterons.
-Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dawid Kuroczko | 2005-04-20 08:35:48 | Re: immutable functions vs. join for lookups ? |
| Previous Message | J. Andrew Rogers | 2005-04-20 06:02:28 | Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?) |