Mindaugas Riauba wrote:
I missed your orig. post, but AFAIK multiprocessing kernels will handle
HT
CPUs as 2 CPUs each. Thus, our dual Xeon 2.4 is recognized as 4 Xeon 2.4
CPUs.
This way, I don't think HT would improve any single query (afaik no
postgres
process uses more
: Re: [PERFORM] Dual Xeon + HW RAID question
Right, I simplified it. The big deal is whether the OS favors the
second real CPU over one of the virtual CPU's on the same die --- by
default, it doesn't. Ever if it did work perfectly, you are talking
about going from 1 to 1.4 or 2 to 2.8, which
SZUCS Gábor wrote:
by default -- do you mean there is a way to tell Linux to favor the second
real cpu over the HT one? how?
Right now there is no way the kernel can tell which virtual cpu's are on
each physical cpu's, and that is the problem. Once there is a way,
hyperthreading will be more
Jord Tanner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:39, Bruce Momjian wrote:
But CPU affinity isn't realated to hyperthreading, as far as I know.
CPU affinity tries to keep processes on the same cpu in case there is
still valuable info in the cpu cache.
It is true that CPU affinity is
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 11:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
Jord Tanner wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-22 at 10:39, Bruce Momjian wrote:
But CPU affinity isn't realated to hyperthreading, as far as I know.
CPU affinity tries to keep processes on the same cpu in case there is
still valuable info in the
SZUCS,
In my tests, I don´t a great performance enhacement with HT.
I suspect that my problem resides on I/O performance. I will
wait for a best moment to resinstall the system with other
disk configurations and then I will report here.
Thanks for all replys!
Alexandre
Alexandre,
I missed
Alexandre,
I missed your orig. post, but AFAIK multiprocessing kernels will handle HT
CPUs as 2 CPUs each. Thus, our dual Xeon 2.4 is recognized as 4 Xeon 2.4
CPUs.
This way, I don't think HT would improve any single query (afaik no postgres
process uses more than one cpu), but overall
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 11:25:14AM -0700, Nikolaus Dilger wrote:
Alexandre,
Since you want the fastest speed I would do the 2 data
disks in RAID 0 (striping) not RAID 1 (mirroring).
Note that RAID 0 buys you nothing at all in redundancy. So if the
point is to be able to recover from a disk
Alexandre,
Since you want the fastest speed I would do the 2 data
disks in RAID 0 (striping) not RAID 1 (mirroring).
If you would care about not loosing any transactions
you would keep all 3 disks in RAID 5.
Don't know the answer to the Hyperthreading question.
Why don't you run a test to find
