Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

From: Craig White <craigwhite(at)azapple(dot)com>
To: Wes <wespvp(at)msg(dot)bt(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance
Date: 2007-11-27 01:19:43
Message-ID: 1196126383.1959.2.camel@lin-workstation.azapple.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 17:37 -0600, Wes wrote:
> On 11/13/07 10:02 AM, "Scott Ribe" <scott_ribe(at)killerbytes(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > What you're referring to must be that the kernel was essentially
> > single-threaded, with a single "kernel-funnel" lock. (Because the OS
> > certainly supported threads, and it was certainly possible to write
> > highly-threaded applications, and I don't know of any performance problems
> > with threaded applications.)
> >
> > This has been getting progressively better, with each release adding more
> > in-kernel concurrency. Which means that 10.5 probably obsoletes all prior
> > postgres benchmarks on OS X.
>
> While I've never seen this documented anywhere, it empirically looks like
> 10.5 also (finally) adds CPU affinity to better utilize instruction caching.
> On a dual CPU system under 10.4, one CPU bound process would use two CPU's
> at 50%. Under 10.5 it uses one CPU at 100%.
>
> I never saw any resolution to this thread - were the original tests on the
> Opteron and OS X identical, or were they two different workloads?
----
resolution?

http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-11/msg00946.php

conclusion?

Mac was still pretty slow in comparison

Craig

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2007-11-27 01:49:21 Desparately seeking new India Regional Contact for postgresql.org
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2007-11-27 00:09:24 Re: Rules slower than Dynamic SQL ?