| From: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannes Dorbath <light(at)theendofthetunnel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" |
| Date: | 2006-09-22 08:59:27 |
| Message-ID: | 4513A5EF.7000201@tweakers.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Try the translation ;)
http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/13
On 22-9-2006 10:32 Hannes Dorbath wrote:
> A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
>
> http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
>
> 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
> front.
>
> 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?
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Markus Schaber | 2006-09-22 09:13:01 | Re: Large tables (was: RAID 0 not as fast as |
| Previous Message | nicky | 2006-09-22 08:58:06 | Re: Opteron vs. Xeon "benchmark" |