RE: [GENERAL] Performance

Don't forget about IO speeds as well.
-DEJ

> [snip]
> > Using the rc5 client as a 'benchmark' (what else has
> programmers working
> > hard to optimize their code to get the best numbers on
> it?), we found that
> > when comparing a Dual-PII 450 against an Sparc E450/400Mhz,
> the E450 came
> > in at ~30% less powerful then the Dual-PII ...
> >
> > If you take a look at
> http://infopad.EECS.Berkeley.EDU/CIC/summary/local,
> > it shows comparisons of the various CPUs out there, up
> until Nov/98 ...
> > the Intel CPUs blow away the Sparc chip's in integer
> arithmetic, while the
> > Sparc excels in floating point. Your operating system, and
> the database,
> > tends to do most stuff in integer, so you get performance boons that
> > way...
> >
> > The other thing to consider is that you are comparing two
> differences, not
> > just one. Different CPUs and different operating systems.
> Solaris isn't
> > nicknamed 'slowaris' for nothing :) Its a bloated OS,
> albeit stable...
> >
>
> The original poster noted using Solaris 2.5.1 -- been there,
> done that, it
> certainly can be slow. A long time ago, I contacted Sun
> about this. They
> acknowledged a problem with the dynamic library loading
> routines. I have
> a Dual Sparc 125/512 running Solaris 2.6 and a dual
> pentium-100 running
> 2.5.1. I'll test some to see if this might be 2.5 v. 2.6 OS
> differences,
> although there is stil the underlying hardware issue.
>
> The second point however, is clock speeds. Two 167 CPUs <>
> One 333 CPU.
>
> The third is the SPARC chip's cache versus the Intel chip's
> cache. I know
> SUN and Ross were making chips with as little as 128 cache,
> and the SPEC
> marks for the 128 v. 256 v 512 v 1024 cache are phenomenal.
> So just out
> of curiousity, what's the cache size on the SPARC and Intel chips
> respectively?
>
> > On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Jason wrote:
> >
> > > Looking for a little reasoning behind our performance
> difference on 2
> > > different platforms. We have been running postgres on
> our sparcs, and
> > > have come to rely on the dB quite heavily. We have
> dedicated a box to
> > > doing nothing but our postgres work. Here is what we have:
> > >
> > > Dual Sparc 167
> > > 512 MB RAM
> > > Solaris 2.5.1
> > >
> > > Performance seemed reasonable to us, until we ran the
> same database and
> > > queries on the following machine:
> > >
> > > Intel Celeron 333
> > > 128 MB RAM
> > > Red Hat Linux 5.2
> > >
> > > We have a passwd style database with 65,000 rows. We
> updated 20,000 of
> > > them with a SQL update command, setting a single integer
> field to a
> > > value. Both boxes where indexed the same, and had
> identical data. The
> > > Sparc took near 10 minutes to complete, while the Intel took ~30
> > > seconds. This is just one case, but many very similar
> tests had the
> > > same results.
> > >
> > > Now I love Linux, and the price compared to a Sparc makes it much
> > > simpler to get one on line. However, I can't understand
> why the Sparc
> > > would lag so far behind. We are starting Postgres the
> same on both
> > > machines:
> > >
> > > su - postgres -c "/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -B 256
> -o -F -i -S"
> > >
> > > We are looking at getting a dual 400 Intel Pentium II box
> with Red Hat
> > > to migrate all of the Postgres work to. But in the
> meantime, is there a
> > > way to optimize the performance on the Sparc? Thanks in advance.
> > >
> > > -Jason Neumeier.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664
> IRC Nick: Scrappy
> > Systems Administrator @ hub.org
> > primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary:
> scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>