The text above the pictures on page 13. Translated in my crappy english.
The confrontation between the Opteron and Woodcrest was inevitable in
this article, but who can add 1 and 1 should have known from the
previous two pages that it doesn't look that good for AMD . Under loads
of 25 till 100 simultaneous visitors, the Xeon performs 24% better with
MSQL 4.1.20, 30% better in MySQL 5.0.20a and 37% better in PostgreSQL
8.2-dev. In short, the Socket F Opteron doesn't stand a chance, although
the Woodcrest scales better and has such a high startpoint with one
core, there is no chance of beating it. We can imagine that the Opteron
with more memory and production hardware, would be a few % faster, but
the difference with the Woodcrest is that high that we have a hard time
believing that the complete picture would change that much.
Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
> I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
> "benchmark" was about.
> Their diagrams show `Request per seconds'. What should that mean? How
> many connections PG accepted per second? So they measured the OS fork
> performance? Should that value be of any interrest? Anyone with heavy
> OLTP workload will use persistent connections or a connection pool in
> Do they mean TPS? That woulnd't make much sense in a CPU benchmark, as
> OLTP workload is typically limited by the disc subsystem.
> Can someone enlighten me what this site is about?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Arjen van der Meijden||Date: 2006-09-22 08:59:27|
|Subject: Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"|
|Previous:||From: Hannes Dorbath||Date: 2006-09-22 08:32:02|
|Subject: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark"|