| From: | Shaun Thomas <sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Evgeny Shishkin <itparanoia(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, "M(dot) D(dot)" <lists(at)turnkey(dot)bz>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: hardware advice |
| Date: | 2012-09-27 21:20:33 |
| Message-ID: | 5064C321.5080204@optionshouse.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 09/27/2012 04:08 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote:
> from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1
> on x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440.
How did you run those benchmarks? I find that incredibly hard to
believe. Not only does 9.2 scale *much* better than 9.1, but the E5-2440
is a 15MB cache Sandy Bridge, as opposed to a 12MB cache Nehalem.
Despite the slightly lower clock speed, you should have much better
performance with 9.2 on the 2440.
I know one thing you might want to check is to make sure both servers
have turbo mode enabled, and power savings turned off for all CPUs.
Check the BIOS for the CPU settings, because some motherboards and
vendors have different defaults. I know we got inconsistent and much
worse performance until we made those two changes on our HP systems.
We use pgbench for benchmarking, so there's not anything I can really
send you. :)
--
Shaun Thomas
OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604
312-444-8534
sthomas(at)optionshouse(dot)com
______________________________________________
See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | M. D. | 2012-09-27 21:22:41 | Re: hardware advice |
| Previous Message | Alan Hodgson | 2012-09-27 21:17:57 | Re: hardware advice |