| From: | William Yu <wyu(at)talisys(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |
| Date: | 2006-04-26 15:24:35 |
| Message-ID: | e2o3bk$1v7h$1@news.hub.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
David Boreham wrote:
> It isn't only Postgres. I work on a number of other server applications
> that also run much faster on Opterons than the published benchmark
> figures would suggest they should. They're all compiled with gcc4,
> so possibly there's a compiler issue. I don't run Windows on any
> of our Opteron boxes so I can't easily compare using the MS compiler.
Maybe it's just a fact that the majority of x86 64-bit development for
open source software happens on Opteron/A64 machines. 64-bit AMD
machines were selling a good year before 64-bit Intel machines were
available. And even after Intel EMT64 were available, anybody in their
right mind would have picked AMD machines over Intel due to
cost/heat/performance. So you end up with 64-bit OSS being
developed/optimized for Opterons and the 10% running Intel EMT64 handle
compatibility issues.
Would be interesting to see a survey of what machines OSS developers use
to write/test/optimize their code.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-04-26 15:27:18 | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2006-04-26 15:17:58 | Re: Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs |