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

Re: Quad Xeon or Quad Opteron?

From: "Jeffrey Baker" <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: "Andrzej Zawadzki" <zawadaa(at)wp(dot)pl>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Quad Xeon or Quad Opteron?
Date: 2008-05-24 20:39:15
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Andrzej Zawadzki <zawadaa(at)wp(dot)pl> wrote:

> Hello,
>  We're planning new production server for PostgreSQL and I'm wondering
> which processor (or even platform) will be better: Quad Xeon or Quad
> Opteron (for example SUN now has a new offer Sun Fire X4440 x64).
> When I was buying my last database server, then SUN v40z was a really
> very good choice (Intel's base server was slower). This v40z still works
> pretty good but I need one more.
> AFAIK Intel made some changes in chipset but... is this better then AMD
> HyperTransport and Direct Connect Architecture from database point of
> view? How about L3 cache - is this important for performance?

Intel's chipset is still broken when using dual sockets and quad core
processors.  The problem manifests itself as excessive cache line bouncing.
In my opinion the best bang/buck combo on the CPU side is the fastest
dual-core Xeon CPUs you can find.  You get excellent single-thread
performance and you still have four processors, which was a fantasy for most
people only 5 years ago.  In addition you can put a ton of memory in the new
Xeon machines.  64GB is completely practical.

I still run several servers on Opterons but in my opinion they don't make
sense right now unless you truly need the CPU parallelism.


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Stephen R. van den BergDate: 2008-05-25 08:21:33
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Posible planner improvement?
Previous:From: Decibel!Date: 2008-05-24 19:15:34
Subject: Re: I/O on select count(*)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group