Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Geoffrey wrote: Guillaume Smet wrote: On 2/23/07, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As I've heard. We're headed for 8 as soon as possible, but until we get our code ready, we're on 7.4.16. You should move to at least 8.1 and possibly 8.2. It's not a good idea to upgrade only to 8 IMHO. When I said 8, I meant whatever the latest greatest 8 is. Right now, that looks like 8.2.3. No. The latest version of 8.2 is 8.2.3, there is also 8.1 which is at 8.1.8 and 8.0 which is at 8.0.12. They are all different *major* releases. Yes I am aware of the various releases. My bad in that my reference to '8' was lazy and did not indicate the full release. Our intention is to move to the latest 8.2.* when we are able. IMO, nobody should be running anything less than 8.1.8. Same old thing, time and money. Too busy bailing the boat to patch it right now... -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Geoffrey wrote: > Guillaume Smet wrote: >> On 2/23/07, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> As I've heard. We're headed for 8 as soon as possible, but until we get >>> our code ready, we're on 7.4.16. >> >> You should move to at least 8.1 and possibly 8.2. It's not a good idea >> to upgrade only to 8 IMHO. > > When I said 8, I meant whatever the latest greatest 8 is. Right now, > that looks like 8.2.3. No. The latest version of 8.2 is 8.2.3, there is also 8.1 which is at 8.1.8 and 8.0 which is at 8.0.12. They are all different *major* releases. IMO, nobody should be running anything less than 8.1.8. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Guillaume Smet wrote: On 2/23/07, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As I've heard. We're headed for 8 as soon as possible, but until we get our code ready, we're on 7.4.16. You should move to at least 8.1 and possibly 8.2. It's not a good idea to upgrade only to 8 IMHO. When I said 8, I meant whatever the latest greatest 8 is. Right now, that looks like 8.2.3. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:05:57PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: >>> In searching the archives, I can't find any specific info indentifying >>> which Xeon processors don't have this problem. >> AFAIK the cut-off point is at the Woodcrests. They are overall much better >> suited to PostgreSQL than the older Xeons were. >> >> It's slightly unfortunate that AMD and Intel cling to the Opteron and Xeon >> names even though they're making significant architecture changes, but that's >> life, I guess. > > AFAIR Intel has been calling their server processors Xeon since Pentium > Pro's, at least. > Almost. Xeon was the new name for the "Pro" series. Instead of Pentium II Pro, we got Pentium II Xeon. The whole Pentium Pro line was a server line, which is why initial Pentium-II CPUs were significantly slower for server apps than the much older ppro (which still runs pg at a reasonable speed if you have enough of them and a low budget, btw) //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
On 2/23/07, Geoffrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: As I've heard. We're headed for 8 as soon as possible, but until we get our code ready, we're on 7.4.16. You should move to at least 8.1 and possibly 8.2. It's not a good idea to upgrade only to 8 IMHO. -- Guillaume ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
On 2/23/07, Joshua D. Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Also isn't it pretty much *not* a problem with current versions of PostgreSQL? We had a really *big* scalability problem with a quad Xeon MP 2.2 and PostgreSQL 7.4. The problem is mostly gone since we upgraded to 8.1 a year ago. Woodcrest seems to perform really well with PostgreSQL according to what I can read on the Internet so we will probably change the server for a dual Woodcrest in a few months. -- Guillaume ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Joshua D. Drake wrote: Josh Berkus wrote: Geoffrey, I recall a reference on the list indicating that newer Xeon processors don't suffer from the context switching problem reported last year. Just to be clear, it's a software problem which affects all architectures, including AMD and Sparc. It's just *worse* on the PIII and P4 generation Xeons. Also isn't it pretty much *not* a problem with current versions of PostgreSQL? As I've heard. We're headed for 8 as soon as possible, but until we get our code ready, we're on 7.4.16. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Josh Berkus wrote: > Geoffrey, > >> I recall a reference on the list indicating that newer Xeon processors >> don't suffer from the context switching problem reported last year. > > Just to be clear, it's a software problem which affects all architectures, > including AMD and Sparc. It's just *worse* on the PIII and P4 generation > Xeons. > Also isn't it pretty much *not* a problem with current versions of PostgreSQL? Joshua D. Drake -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Josh Berkus wrote: Geoffrey, I recall a reference on the list indicating that newer Xeon processors don't suffer from the context switching problem reported last year. Just to be clear, it's a software problem which affects all architectures, including AMD and Sparc. It's just *worse* on the PIII and P4 generation Xeons. Thanks, that's what I need to hear. They've since cut a deal for Operton based hardware, so the point is now moot. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Geoffrey, > I recall a reference on the list indicating that newer Xeon processors > don't suffer from the context switching problem reported last year. Just to be clear, it's a software problem which affects all architectures, including AMD and Sparc. It's just *worse* on the PIII and P4 generation Xeons. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 04:53:18PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >> It's slightly unfortunate that AMD and Intel cling to the Opteron and Xeon >> names even though they're making significant architecture changes, but that's >> life, I guess. > AFAIR Intel has been calling their server processors Xeon since Pentium > Pro's, at least. Yes, that was sort of my point. :-) /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:05:57PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: > > In searching the archives, I can't find any specific info indentifying > > which Xeon processors don't have this problem. > > AFAIK the cut-off point is at the Woodcrests. They are overall much better > suited to PostgreSQL than the older Xeons were. > > It's slightly unfortunate that AMD and Intel cling to the Opteron and Xeon > names even though they're making significant architecture changes, but that's > life, I guess. AFAIR Intel has been calling their server processors Xeon since Pentium Pro's, at least. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 02:05:57PM -0500, Geoffrey wrote: > In searching the archives, I can't find any specific info indentifying > which Xeon processors don't have this problem. AFAIK the cut-off point is at the Woodcrests. They are overall much better suited to PostgreSQL than the older Xeons were. It's slightly unfortunate that AMD and Intel cling to the Opteron and Xeon names even though they're making significant architecture changes, but that's life, I guess. /* Steinar */ -- Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
I recall a reference on the list indicating that newer Xeon processors don't suffer from the context switching problem reported last year. In searching the archives, I can't find any specific info indentifying which Xeon processors don't have this problem. Anyone point me to a reference? We recently migrated to a woodcrest @ 3 GHz from a 2 Ghz opteron. The woodcrest seems to be enjoying doing db-related work. I don't have numbers other than load is much lower now. Is this in any way related to the version of Postgresql one is running? We're headed for 8, but have a bit of work before we can get there. We are currently on 7.4.16. We are at 7.4.14 which works fine atm. regards Claus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
[PERFORM] which Xeon processors don't have the context switching problem
I recall a reference on the list indicating that newer Xeon processors don't suffer from the context switching problem reported last year. In searching the archives, I can't find any specific info indentifying which Xeon processors don't have this problem. Anyone point me to a reference? Is this in any way related to the version of Postgresql one is running? We're headed for 8, but have a bit of work before we can get there. We are currently on 7.4.16. Thanks for any info. -- Until later, Geoffrey Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Benjamin Franklin ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
