| From: | Ben <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Walter Vaughan <wvaughan(at)steelerubber(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware |
| Date: | 2007-02-06 19:25:53 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.0702061124360.28404@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Walter Vaughan wrote:
> <quote>
> CPUs ? The more CPUs the better, however if your database does not use many
> complex functions your money is best spent on a better disk subsystem. Also,
> avoid Intel Xeon processors with PostgreSQL as there is a problem with the
> context switching in these processors that gives sub-par performance.
> Opterons are generally accepted as being a superior CPU for PostgreSQL
> databases.
> </quote>
>
> Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server with Quad
> Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz.
My understanding is that this is no longer true with the newer xeons, but
then, I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2007-02-06 19:29:52 | getting status transaction error |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2007-02-06 19:25:41 | Re: PostgreSQL/FireBird |