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
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 ? |