On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 10:20:11AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Qingqing Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I can see your computer is really slow, so my theory is that since it is > > easy to hold a running-slowly horse than a fast one, so my spinlock on a > > 2.4G modern machine should takes relatively longer time to get effective. > > Just kidding. > > Is that "modern machine" a Xeon by any chance? We know that Xeons have > fairly awful concurrent performance, and the long latency for bus lock > instructions may well be the reason why. FWIW, the numbers I showed > last night were for an HPPA machine, which I used just because I chanced > to have CVS tip already built for profiling on it. I've since > reproduced the test on a spiffy new dual Xeon that Red Hat just bought > me :-) ... and I get similar numbers to yours. It'd be interesting to > see the results from an SMP Opteron, if anyone's got one handy.
Is there still interest in this? I've got a dual Opteron running FBSD. (What would be the profiler to use on FBSD?) -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
