| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jord Tanner <jord(at)indygecko(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "SZUCS =?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E1bor?=" <surrano(at)mailbox(dot)hu>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Xeon + HW RAID question |
| Date: | 2003-07-22 18:50:37 |
| Message-ID: | 200307221850.h6MIocK10571@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Jord Tanner wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:39, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > But CPU affinity isn't realated to hyperthreading, as far as I know.
> > CPU affinity tries to keep processes on the same cpu in case there is
> > still valuable info in the cpu cache.
> >
>
> It is true that CPU affinity is designed to prevent the dump of valuable
> CPU cache. My thought is that if you are trying to prevent CPU
> contention, you could use CPU affinity to prevent 2 postmaster processes
> from running simultaneously on the same die. Am I out to lunch here?
> I've not worked with CPU affinity before, so I'm not familiar with the
> intimate details.
I guess you could but it is the backends that use the cpu. I don't
think manually specifying affinity will work for most applications.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jord Tanner | 2003-07-22 19:18:52 | Re: Dual Xeon + HW RAID question |
| Previous Message | Mendola Gaetano | 2003-07-22 18:35:45 | Re: [PERFORM] Wrong plan or what ? |