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

Re: CPUs for new databases

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CPUs for new databases
Date: 2010-10-27 18:28:02
Message-ID: AANLkTimYOhqPmXDUj4qCD4YRfAYhnf57ieV9FXzS8vTC@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/26/10 6:14 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>   There was an earlier thread with
>> Greg and I in it where we posted the memory bandwidth numbers for that
>> machine and it was insane how much data all 48 cores could pump into /
>> out of memory at the same time.
>
> Well, the next step then is to do some database server benchmarking.
>
> My experience has been that PostgreSQL scales poorly past 30 cores, or
> even at lower levels depending on the workload.  So it would be
> interesting to see if the memory bandwidth on the AMDs makes up for our
> scaling issues.

Which OSes have you tested it on?  And what hardware?  For smaller
operations, like pgbench, where a large amount of what you're working
on fits in cache, I get near linear scaling right up to 48 cores.
Overall performance increases til about 50 threads, then drops off to
about 60 to 70% peak for the next hundred or so threads I add on.

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2010-10-27 18:28:06
Subject: Re: Postgres insert performance and storage requirement compared to Oracle
Previous:From: Jon NelsonDate: 2010-10-27 18:23:05
Subject: Re: temporary tables, indexes, and query plans

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