Re: [PERFORM] Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures
Hi, Arjen, On 8-Sep-06, at 1:51 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: Hi, We've been running our webapp database-benchmark again on mysql and postgresql. This time using a Fujitsu-Siemens RX300 S3 machine equipped with a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest (5150) and a 3.73Ghz Dempsey (5080). And compared those results to our earlier undertaken Opteron benchmarks on 2.4GHz' Socket F- and 940-versions (2216, 280). You can see the english translation here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/646 The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons. Actually... With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-processor is also faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But then again, it is the top-model Dempsey and not a top-model Opteron so that isn't a clear win. Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's before that. Why wouldn't you use a top of the line Opteron ? Again PostgreSQL shows very good scalability, so good even HyperThreading adds extra performance to it with 4 cores enabled... while MySQL in every version we tested (5.1.9 is not displayed, but showed similar performance) was slower with HT enabled. Further more we received our ordered Dell MD1000 SAS-enclosure which has 15 SAS Fujitsu MAX3036RC disks and that unit is controlled using a Dell PERC 5/e. We've done some benchmarks (unfortunately everything is in Dutch for this). We tested varying amounts of disks in RAID10 (a set of 4,5,6 and 7 2-disk-mirrors striped), RAID50 and RAID5. The interfaces to display the results are in a google-stylee beta-state, but here is a list of all benchmarks done: http://tweakers.net/benchdb/search?query=md1000ColcomboID=5 Hover over the left titles to see how many disks and in what raid- level was done. Here is a comparison of 14 disk RAID5/50/10's: http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/wide/?TestcomboIDs%5B1156% 5D=1TestcomboIDs%5B1178%5D=1TestcomboIDs%5B1176% 5D=1DB=NieuwsQuery=Keyword For raid5 we have some graphs: http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1156 Scroll down to see how adding disks improves performance on it. The Areca 1280 with WD Raptor's is a very good alternative (or even better) as you can see for most benchmarks, but is beaten as soon as the relative weight of random-IO increases (I/O-meter fileserver and database benchmarks), the processor on the 1280 is faster than the one on the Dell-controller so its faster in sequential IO. These benchmarks were not done using postgresql, so you shouldn't read them as absolute for all your situations ;-) But you can get a good impression I think. Best regards, Arjen van der Meijden Tweakers.net ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PERFORM] Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures
On 8-Sep-06, at 8:44 AM, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: Dave Cramer wrote: Hi, Arjen, The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons. Actually... With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey- processor is also faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But then again, it is the top-model Dempsey and not a top-model Opteron so that isn't a clear win. Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's before that. Why wouldn't you use a top of the line Opteron ? What do you mean by this question? Why we didn't test the Opteron 285 instead of the 280? Yes, that is the question. Well, its not that you can just go up to a hardware supplier and pick exactly the system you want to review/benchmar... especially not with pre-production hardware that (at the time) wasn't very widely available. Normally, you just get what system they have available at their marketing or pre-sales department. Understandable. The Opteron 280 was from an earlier review and was fitted in the Try and Buy-version of the Sun Fire x4200. In that system; you only have a few options where the 280 was the fastest at the time. But then again, systems with the Woodcrest 5150 (the subtop one) and Opteron 280 (also the subtop one) are about equal in price, so its not a bad comparison in a bang-for-bucks point of view. The Dempsey was added to show how both the Opteron and the newer Woodcrest would compete against that one. Did I read this correctly that one of the Opterons in the test only had 4G of ram vs 7 G in the Intel boxes ? If so this is a severely limiting factor for postgresql at least? Dave Best regards, Arjen ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
[PERFORM] Xeon Woodcrest/Dempsey vs Opteron Socket F/940 with postgresql and some SAS raid-figures
Hi, We've been running our webapp database-benchmark again on mysql and postgresql. This time using a Fujitsu-Siemens RX300 S3 machine equipped with a 2.66Ghz Woodcrest (5150) and a 3.73Ghz Dempsey (5080). And compared those results to our earlier undertaken Opteron benchmarks on 2.4GHz' Socket F- and 940-versions (2216, 280). You can see the english translation here: http://tweakers.net/reviews/646 The Woodcrest is quite a bit faster than the Opterons. Actually... With Hyperthreading *enabled* the older Dempsey-processor is also faster than the Opterons with PostgreSQL. But then again, it is the top-model Dempsey and not a top-model Opteron so that isn't a clear win. Of course its clear that even a top-Opteron wouldn't beat the Dempsey's as easily as it would have beaten the older Xeon's before that. Again PostgreSQL shows very good scalability, so good even HyperThreading adds extra performance to it with 4 cores enabled... while MySQL in every version we tested (5.1.9 is not displayed, but showed similar performance) was slower with HT enabled. Further more we received our ordered Dell MD1000 SAS-enclosure which has 15 SAS Fujitsu MAX3036RC disks and that unit is controlled using a Dell PERC 5/e. We've done some benchmarks (unfortunately everything is in Dutch for this). We tested varying amounts of disks in RAID10 (a set of 4,5,6 and 7 2-disk-mirrors striped), RAID50 and RAID5. The interfaces to display the results are in a google-stylee beta-state, but here is a list of all benchmarks done: http://tweakers.net/benchdb/search?query=md1000ColcomboID=5 Hover over the left titles to see how many disks and in what raid-level was done. Here is a comparison of 14 disk RAID5/50/10's: http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/wide/?TestcomboIDs%5B1156%5D=1TestcomboIDs%5B1178%5D=1TestcomboIDs%5B1176%5D=1DB=NieuwsQuery=Keyword For raid5 we have some graphs: http://tweakers.net/benchdb/testcombo/1156 Scroll down to see how adding disks improves performance on it. The Areca 1280 with WD Raptor's is a very good alternative (or even better) as you can see for most benchmarks, but is beaten as soon as the relative weight of random-IO increases (I/O-meter fileserver and database benchmarks), the processor on the 1280 is faster than the one on the Dell-controller so its faster in sequential IO. These benchmarks were not done using postgresql, so you shouldn't read them as absolute for all your situations ;-) But you can get a good impression I think. Best regards, Arjen van der Meijden Tweakers.net ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
