| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net>, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |
| Date: | 2012-10-15 15:34:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAOR=d=02vBk24Mt7cJd9SBxjAcL26Ao=N_8o7ZxB-qe0VW1T8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net> wrote:
>> sure you're right.
>>
>> It's just that my bet was on a higher throughput
>> when HT was isabled from the BIOS (as you stated
>> previously in this thread).
>
> Yes, mine too. It's bizarre. If I were you, I'd look into it more
> deeply. It may be a flaw in your test methodology (maybe you disabled
> the wrong cores?). If not, it would be good to know why the extra TPS
> to replicate elsewhere.
I'd recommend more synthetic benchmarks when trying to compare systems
like this. bonnie++, the memory stream test that Greg Smith was
working on, and so on. Get an idea what core differences the machines
display under such testing.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrea Suisani | 2012-10-15 15:45:24 | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2012-10-15 15:32:45 | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |