Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?)

From: Jeff Frost <jeff(at)frostconsultingllc(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?)
Date: 2005-04-20 06:21:32
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.62.0504192315410.21883@discord.dyndns.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> I don't know about 2.5x faster (perhaps on specific types of loads), but the
> reason Opterons rock for database applications is their insanely good memory
> bandwidth and latency that scales much better than the Xeon. Opterons also
> have a ccNUMA-esque I/O fabric and two dedicated on-die memory channels *per
> processor* -- no shared bus there, closer to real UNIX server iron than a
> glorified PC.

Thanks J! That's exactly what I was suspecting it might be. Actually, I
found an anandtech benchmark that shows the Opteron coming in at close to 2.0x
performance:

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=2

It's an Opteron 150 (2.4ghz) vs. Xeon 3.6ghz from August. I wonder if the
differences are more pronounced with the newer Opterons.

-Jeff

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dawid Kuroczko 2005-04-20 08:35:48 Re: immutable functions vs. join for lookups ?
Previous Message J. Andrew Rogers 2005-04-20 06:02:28 Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?)