Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

From: Steve Poe <steve(dot)poe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
Date: 2006-06-14 15:03:25
Message-ID: 1150297405.12280.15.camel@amd64-gentoo-laptop
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Dave, Joshua, Scott (and all),

Thanks for your feedback, while I do appreciate it, I did not intent on
making this discussion "buy this instead"...I whole-heartly agree with
you. Joshua, you made the best comment, it is a business decision for
the client. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I've recommended
Sun or Penguin Computing which I've had no technical issues with. They
did not dispute my recommendation but they ignored it. I have not like
Dell, on the server side, since 1998 - 2000 time period.

Excluding Dell's issues, has anyone seen performance differences between
AMD's Opteron and Intel's new Xeon's (dual or quad CPU or dual-core). If
anyone has done benchmark comparisons between them, any summary
information would be appreciated.

For now, I am asking the client to hold-off and wait for the AMD Opteron
availability on the Dell servers.

Thanks again.

Steve

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-06-14 15:16:39 Re: how to partition disks
Previous Message John E. Vincent 2006-06-14 14:47:01 Performance of pg_dump on PGSQL 8.0