| From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | RD黄永卫 <yongwei_huang(at)temp(dot)gtmc(dot)com(dot)cn>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] About “context-switching issue on Xeon” test case ？ |
| Date: | 2010-04-11 15:43:17 |
| Message-ID: | k2wdcc563d11004110843w103f22rac80d197e04e1574@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
2010/4/10 Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> For 2 sockets Intel rules the roost. I'd imagine AMD's much faster
>> bus architecture for >2 sockets would make them the winner, but I
>> haven't had a system like that to test, either Intel or AMD.
>>
>
> AMD has been getting such poor performance due to the RAM they've been
> using (DDR2-800) that it really doesn't matter--Intel has been thrashing
> them across the board continuously since the "Nehalem" processors became
> available, which started in volume in 2009.
Considering the nehalems are only available (or were at least) in two
socket varieties, and that opterons have two channels per socket
wouldn't the aggregate performance of 8 sockets x 2 channels each beat
the 2 sockets / 3 channels each?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Corin | 2010-04-11 21:12:30 | planer chooses very bad plan |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-04-11 12:44:25 | Re: Some question |