On Apr 25, 2006, at 5:09 PM, Ron Peacetree wrote:
...and even if you do buy Intel, =DONT= buy Dell unless you like
causing trouble for yourself.
Bad experiences with Dell in general and their poor PERC RAID
controllers in specific are all over this and other DB forums.
I don't think that
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:07:17PM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
THROUGHPUT is better with DDR2 if and only if there is enough data
to be fetched in a serial fashion from memory.
LATENCY however is dependent on the base clock rate of the RAM
involved. So PC3200, 200MHz x2, is going to actually
I'm posting this to the entire performance list in the hopes that it will be
generally useful.
=r
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Apr 26, 2006 3:25 AM
To: Ron Peacetree [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
Hi Ron:
As a result
The reason AMD is has held off from supporting DDR2 until now are:
1. DDR is EOL. JEDEC is not ratifying any DDR faster than 200x2 while DDR2
standards as fast as 333x4 are likely to be ratified (note that Intel pretty
much avoided DDR, leaving it to AMD, while DDR2 is Intel's main RAM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have an Intel Pentium D 920, and an AMD X2 3800+. These are very
close in performance. The retail price difference is:
Intel Pentium D 920 is selling for $310 CDN
AMD X2 3800+is selling for $347 CDN
Anybody who claims that Intel is 2X more
While in general there may not be that much of a % difference between
the 2 chips,
there's a huge gap in Postgres. For whatever reason, Postgres likes
Opterons.
Way more than Intel P4-architecture chips.
It isn't only Postgres. I work on a number of other server applications
that also run
they actually are.
Again, my apologies.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: Ron Peacetree [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Apr 26, 2006 8:40 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
I'm posting this to the entire performance list
Have a look at this Wikipedia page which outlines some differences
between the AMD and Intel versions of 64-bit :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T
It isn't only Postgres. I work on a number of other server applications
that also run much faster on Opterons than the published
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:55, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:14, Bill Moran wrote:
I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
the next round of server purchases. The machines to be
David Boreham wrote:
It isn't only Postgres. I work on a number of other server applications
that also run much faster on Opterons than the published benchmark
figures would suggest they should. They're all compiled with gcc4,
so possibly there's a compiler issue. I don't run Windows on any
of
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 20:17, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:54:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made the choice I describe based on a lot of research. I was going
to go both Intel, until I noticed that the Intel prices were dropping
fast. 30% price cut in 2
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:27:18AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
If you haven't actually run a heavy benchmark of postgresql on the two
architectures, please don't make your decision based on other
benchmarks. Since you've got both a D920 and an X2 3800, that'd be a
great place to start. Mock
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 11:07:17PM -0400, Ron Peacetree wrote:
A minor point to be noted in addition here is that most DB servers under load
are limited by their physical IO subsystem, their HDs, and not the speed of
their RAM.
I think if that were the only consideration we wouldn't be
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:27:18AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
If you haven't actually run a heavy benchmark of postgresql on the two
architectures, please don't make your decision based on other
benchmarks. Since you've got both a D920 and an X2 3800, that'd be a
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:16:46PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 10:27:18AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
If you haven't actually run a heavy benchmark of postgresql on the two
architectures, please don't make your decision based on other
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:37:31PM -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 06:16:46PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
AMD transfers the dirty cache line directly from cpu to cpu. I can
imaging that helping our test-and-set shared memory usage quite a bit.
Wasn't the whole point of
I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
the next round of server purchases. The machines to be purchased
will be running FreeBSD PostgreSQL.
Where I'm stuck is in deciding whether we want to go with dual-core
pentiums with 2M cache, or with HT pentiums with 8M
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:14, Bill Moran wrote:
I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
the next round of server purchases. The machines to be purchased
will be running FreeBSD PostgreSQL.
Where I'm stuck is in deciding whether we want to go with dual-core
On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 14:14:35 -0400
Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone in the PostgreSQL community have any experience with
large caches or dual-core pentiums that could make any
recommendations?
Heh :) You're in the position I was in about a year ago - we naturally
replaced our
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:14, Bill Moran wrote:
I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
the next round of server purchases. The machines to be purchased
will be running FreeBSD PostgreSQL.
Where I'm stuck is in deciding whether we want to go with dual-core
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Sad, cause the AMD is, on a price / performance scale, twice the
processor for the same money as the Intel.
Maybe a year or two ago. Prices are all coming down. Intel more
than AMD.
AMD still seems better - but not X2, and it
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Sad, cause the AMD is, on a price / performance scale, twice the
processor for the same money as the Intel.
Maybe a year or two ago. Prices are all coming down. Intel more
Bill Moran wrote:
I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
the next round of server purchases. The machines to be purchased
will be running FreeBSD PostgreSQL.
Where I'm stuck is in deciding whether we want to go with dual-core
pentiums with 2M cache, or with HT
But don't believe me or the other people who've seen the difference. Go
buy the Intel box. No skin off my back.
To be more detailed... AMD Opteron has some specific technical
advantages to their design over Intel when it comes to peforming for a
database. Specifically no front side bus :)
Actually, that was from an article from this last month that compared
the dual core intel to the amd. for every dollar spent on the intel,
you got about half the performance of the amd. Not bigotry. fact.
But don't believe me or the other people who've seen the difference. Go
buy the
David Boreham wrote:
Actually, that was from an article from this last month that compared
the dual core intel to the amd. for every dollar spent on the intel,
you got about half the performance of the amd. Not bigotry. fact.
But don't believe me or the other people who've seen the
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
David Boreham wrote:
Actually, that was from an article from this last month that compared
the dual core intel to the amd. for every dollar spent on the intel,
you got about half the performance of the amd. Not bigotry. fact.
But don't believe me or the
experiences with Dell in general and their poor PERC RAID controllers in
specific are all over this and other DB forums.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Apr 25, 2006 2:14 PM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: [PERFORM] Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
My personal favorite pg platform at this time is one based on a 2 socket, dual
core ready mainboard with 16 DIMM slots combined with dual core AMD Kx's.
Right. We've been buying Tyan bare-bones boxes like this.
It's better to go with bare-bones than building boxes from bare metal
because
... ...if the
present reliability problems I'm seeing go away.
Ron
-Original Message-
From: David Boreham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Apr 25, 2006 5:15 PM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Large (8M) cache vs. dual-core CPUs
My personal favorite pg platform at this time is one
Ron Peacetree wrote:
As others have noted, the current price/performance sweet spot for DB servers
is 2S 2C AMD CPUs. These CPUs are also the highest performing x86 compatible solution
for pg.
If you must go Intel for some reason, then wait until the new NGMA CPU's
(Conroe, Merom,
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:14, Bill Moran wrote:
I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for
the next round of server purchases. The machines to be purchased
will be running FreeBSD PostgreSQL.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:42:31PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:38, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
Sad, cause the AMD is, on a price / performance scale, twice the
processor for the same money as the Intel.
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 08:54:40PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I made the choice I describe based on a lot of research. I was going
to go both Intel, until I noticed that the Intel prices were dropping
fast. 30% price cut in 2 months. AMD didn't drop at all during the
same time.
Errr..
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another benefit of Pentium D over AMD X2, at least until AMD chooses
to switch, is that Pentium D supports DDR2, whereas AMD only supports
DDR. There are a lot of technical pros and cons to each - with claims
from AMD that DDR2 can be slower than DDR - but one claim that
Another benefit of Pentium D over AMD X2, at least until AMD chooses
to switch, is that Pentium D supports DDR2, whereas AMD only supports
DDR. There are a lot of technical pros and cons to each - with claims
from AMD that DDR2 can be slower than DDR - but one claim that isn't
often made, but that
36 matches
Mail list logo
