| From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Claus Guttesen" <kometen(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jurgen Haan" <jurgen(at)easyflex(dot)nl>, "Tore Halset" <halset(at)pvv(dot)ntnu(dot)no>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: dell versus hp |
| Date: | 2007-11-09 16:55:45 |
| Message-ID: | dcc563d10711090855j42ce308co1bbbe103ff04c706@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Nov 9, 2007 10:40 AM, Claus Guttesen <kometen(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Apart from the disks, you might also investigate using Opterons instead
> > of Xeons. there appears to be some significant dent in performance
> > between Opteron and Xeon. Xeons appear to spend more time in passing
> > around ownership of memory cache lines in case of a spinlock.
> > It's not yet clear whether or not here has been worked around the issue.
> > You should at least investigate it a bit.
> >
> > We're using a HP DL385 ourselves which performs quite well.
>
> Not atm. Until new benchmarks are published comparing AMD's new
> quad-core with Intel's ditto, Intel has the edge.
>
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/6
For 8 cores, it appears AMD has the lead, read this (stolen from
another thread):
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Campbell, Lance | 2007-11-09 17:49:03 | work_mem and shared_buffers |
| Previous Message | Claus Guttesen | 2007-11-09 16:40:50 | Re: dell versus hp |