From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: scaling beyond 4 processors |
Date: | 2004-12-07 04:16:01 |
Message-ID: | m31xe2d9q6.fsf@knuth.knuth.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
In the last exciting episode, vogler(at)cipsoft(dot)com wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> Since our current Postgres server, a quad Xeon system, finally can't
> keep up with our load anymore we're ready to take the next step.
>
> So the question is: Has anyone experiences with running Postgres on
> systems with more than 4 processors in a production environment?
> Which systems and architectures are you using (e.g. IBM xseries, IBM
> pseries, HP Proliant, Sun Fire, 8- way Opteron)? How about conflicts
> between Postgres' shared memory approach and the NUMA architecture
> of most multi-processor machines?
The perhaps odd thing is that just about any alternative to quad-Xeon
is likely to be _way_ better. There are some context switching
problems that lead to it being remarkably poorer than you'd expect.
Throw in less-than ideal performance of the PAE memory addressing
system and it seems oddly crippled overall.
We've been getting pretty good results with IBM pSeries systems;
they're expensive, but definitely very fast.
Preliminary results with Opterons are also looking very promising.
One process seemed about 25x as fast on a 4-way 8GB Opteron as it was
on a 4-way 8GB Xeon, albeit with enough differences to make the
comparison dangerous.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','gmail.com').
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sgml.html
The IETF motto: "Rough consensus *and* working code."
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-12-07 04:17:24 | Re: scaling beyond 4 processors |
Previous Message | John A Meinel | 2004-12-07 02:54:42 | Re: Config Check |