| From: | Arya F <arya6000(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Cavium ThunderX Processors used for PostgreSQL? |
| Date: | 2017-02-25 16:33:34 |
| Message-ID: | CAFoK1ay825KUtxAmUzcirbu0geNYo2hFbwUU6LUfPQNP2Qw45g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I was shopping around for a dedicated server and I noticed a plan which
uses 2X Cavium ThunderX processors which gives me a total of 96 cores.
I use PostgreSQL + PgBouncer which accepts many connections at a time. I
have my current one to accept maximum connections of 1000, but it never
goes above 200 active connections but the traffic to the system is always
increasing and I want to have the hardware to handle it.
It's the first time I see the Cavium ThunderX name. How do these compare to
a machine that has 2 × E5-2640 v3? I noticed the Cavium ThunderX is a lot
cheaper, but it's not a known name.
What would I get better results with 2X Cavium ThunderX processors with 96
cores or 2 × E5-2640 v3 with 16 cores?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2017-02-25 18:03:23 | Re: Re: GMT FATAL: remaining connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser connections, but I'm using pgBouncer for connection pooling |
| Previous Message | lisandro | 2017-02-25 15:29:40 | Re: GMT FATAL: remaining connection slots are reserved for non-replication superuser connections, but I'm using pgBouncer for connection pooling |