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

Re: dell versus hp

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 (view raw or flat)
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):

http://people.freebsd.org/~kris/scaling/7.0%20Preview.pdf

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Campbell, LanceDate: 2007-11-09 17:49:03
Subject: work_mem and shared_buffers
Previous:From: Claus GuttesenDate: 2007-11-09 16:40:50
Subject: Re: dell versus hp

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