On Sep 28, 2012, at 1:20 AM, Shaun Thomas <stho...@optionshouse.com> wrote:
> On 09/27/2012 04:08 PM, Evgeny Shishkin wrote: > >> from benchmarking on my r/o in memory database, i can tell that 9.1 >> on x5650 is faster than 9.2 on e2440. > > How did you run those benchmarks? I find that incredibly hard to believe. Not > only does 9.2 scale *much* better than 9.1, but the E5-2440 is a 15MB cache > Sandy Bridge, as opposed to a 12MB cache Nehalem. Despite the slightly lower > clock speed, you should have much better performance with 9.2 on the 2440. > > I know one thing you might want to check is to make sure both servers have > turbo mode enabled, and power savings turned off for all CPUs. Check the BIOS > for the CPU settings, because some motherboards and vendors have different > defaults. I know we got inconsistent and much worse performance until we made > those two changes on our HP systems. > > We use pgbench for benchmarking, so there's not anything I can really send > you. :) Yes, on pgbench utilising cpu to 80-90% e2660 is better, it goes to 140k ro tps, so scalability is very very good. But i talk about real oltp ro query. Single threaded. And cpu clock was real winner. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
