| From: | Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |
| Date: | 2012-10-09 00:00:20 |
| Message-ID: | CA+CSw_tEj0+2sFXHhCaFb7UurjgXOkCtE02D79Zk9Gt-GLG72A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:40 AM, Craig James <cjames(at)emolecules(dot)com> wrote:
> Nobody has commented on the hyperthreading question yet ... does it really
> matter? The old (fast) server has hyperthreading disabled, and the new
> (slower) server has hyperthreads enabled.
>
> If hyperthreading is definitely NOT an issue, it will save me a trip to the
> co-lo facility.
Hyperthreading will make lock contention issues worse by having more
threads fighting. Test the new box with postgres 9.2, if the newer
version exhibits much better scaling behavior it strongly suggest lock
contention rather than IO being the root cause.
Ants Aasma
--
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt
Web: http://www.postgresql-support.de
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yeb Havinga | 2012-10-09 11:20:14 | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2012-10-08 23:52:28 | Re: Two identical systems, radically different performance |