| From: | Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | david(at)digitaldogma(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |
| Date: | 2012-10-09 16:43:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAFwQ8rfWEZDU3Pn4ZC24enA3phop-QGwFRNidnLyMVucP08rHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 9:14 AM, David Thomas <david(at)digitaldogma(dot)org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2012 at 04:40:31PM -0700, Craig James wrote:
> > Nobody has commented on the hyperthreading question yet ... does it
> > really matter? The old (fast) server has hyperthreading disabled, and
> > the new (slower) server has hyperthreads enabled.
> > If hyperthreading is definitely NOT an issue, it will save me a trip
> to
> > the co-lo facility.
>
> From my reading it seems that hyperthreading hasn't been a major issue
> for quite sometime on modern kernels.
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2004-10/msg00052.php
>
> I doubt it would hurt much, but I wouldn't make a special trip to the
> co-lo to change it.
>
At this point I've discovered no other options, so down to the co-lo I go.
I'm also going to check power-save options and the RAID controller's
built-in configuration to see if I overlooked something there (readahead,
blocksize, whatever).
Craig
> --
> DavidT
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Craig James | 2012-10-09 20:12:55 | Hyperthreading (was: Two identical systems, radically different performance) |
| Previous Message | Craig James | 2012-10-09 16:41:27 | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |