Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PERFORM] Quad processor options

From: "Anjan Dave" <adave(at)vantage(dot)com>
To: "Bjoern Metzdorf" <bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de>
Cc: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Pgsql-Admin (E-mail)" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quad processor options
Date: 2004-05-11 20:38:28
Message-ID: 4BAFBB6B9CC46F41B2AD7D9F4BBAF78509822A@vt-pe2550-001.vantage.vantage.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-performance
Did you mean to say the trigger-based clustering solution is loading the dual CPUs 60-70% right now?
 
Performance will not be linear with more processors, but it does help with more processes. We haven't benchmarked it, but we haven't had any problems also so far in terms of performance.
 
Price would vary with your relation/yearly purchase, etc, but a 6650 with 2.0GHz/1MB cache/8GB Memory, RAID card, drives, etc, should definitely cost you less than 20K USD.
 
-anjan

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: Bjoern Metzdorf [mailto:bm(at)turtle-entertainment(dot)de] 
	Sent: Tue 5/11/2004 4:28 PM 
	To: Anjan Dave 
	Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org; Pgsql-Admin (E-mail) 
	Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quad processor options
	
	

	Anjan Dave wrote:
	
	> We use XEON Quads (PowerEdge 6650s) and they work nice,
	 > provided you configure the postgres properly.
	 > Dell is the cheapest quad you can buy i think.
	 > You shouldn't be paying 30K unless you are getting high CPU-cache
	 > on each processor and tons of memory.
	
	good to hear, I tried to online configure a quad xeon here at dell
	germany, but the 6550 is not available for online configuration. at dell
	usa it works. I will give them a call tomorrow.
	
	> I am actually curious, have you researched/attempted any
	 > postgresql clustering solutions?
	 > I agree, you can't just keep buying bigger machines.
	
	There are many asynchronous, trigger based solutions out there (eRserver
	etc..), but what we need is basically a master <-> master setup, which
	seems not to be available soon for postgresql.
	
	Our current dual Xeon runs at 60-70% average cpu load, which is really
	much. I cannot afford any trigger overhead here. This machine is
	responsible for over 30M page impressions per month, 50 page impressums
	per second at peak times. The autovacuum daemon is a god sent gift :)
	
	I'm curious how the recently announced mysql cluster will perform,
	although it is not an option for us. postgresql has far superior
	functionality.
	
	> They have 5 internal drives (4 in RAID 10, 1 spare) on U320,
	 > 128MB cache on the PERC controller, 8GB RAM.
	
	Could you tell me what you paid approximately for this setup?
	
	How does it perform? It certainly won't be twice as fast a as dual xeon,
	but I remember benchmarking a quad P3 xeon some time ago, and it was
	disappointingly slow...
	
	Regards,
	Bjoern
	

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Bjoern MetzdorfDate: 2004-05-11 20:41:28
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quad processor options
Previous:From: Bjoern MetzdorfDate: 2004-05-11 20:28:12
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quad processor options

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-05-11 20:39:19
Subject: Re: download problems
Previous:From: Bjoern MetzdorfDate: 2004-05-11 20:28:12
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Quad processor options

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group