Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Vivek Khera]

On Jun 15, 2006, at 1:10 PM, Steve Poe wrote:


Vivek,

Thanks for your feedback.  Which Dell server did you purchase?


I have many many dell rackmounts: 1550, 1650, 1750, 1850, and SC1425  
and throw in a couple of 2450.


I *really* like the 1850 with built-in SCSI RAID.  It is fast enough  
to be a replica of my primary bread and butter database running on a  
beefy opteron system (using Slony-1 replication).


The SC1425 boxes make for good, cheap web front end servers.  We buy  
'em in pairs and load balance them at the network layer using CARP.


At the office we have mostly SC400 series (400, 420, and 430) for our  
servers.  The latest box is an SC430 with dual core pentium D and  
dual SATA drives running software mirror.  It pushes over 20MB/s on  
the disks, which is pretty impressive for the hardware.





The client has a PowerEdge 2600 and they STILL want Dell. Again, if it
were my pocketbook, Dell would not be there.


I lucked out and skipped the 2650 line, apparently :-)

I used the 2450's as my DB servers and they were barely adequate once  
we got beyond our startup phase, and moving them over to Opteron was  
a godsend.   I tried some small opteron systems vendor but had QC  
issues (1 of 5 systems stable), so went with Sun and have not looked  
back.  I still buy Dell's for all other server purposes mainly  
because it is convenient in terms of purchasing and getting support  
(ie, business reasons).


And I don't spend all my time babysitting these boxes, like others  
imply.





The client has a 30GB DB. This is large for me, but probably not with
you. Also, I am advising the client to go to a 10+ disc array (from 3)
and enough RAM to load half the DB into memory.


30GB DB on a 10 disk array seems overkill, considering that the  
smallest disks you're going to get will be 36GB (or perhaps 72Gb by  
now).





smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Steve Poe]

Vivek,

Thanks for your feedback.  Which Dell server did you purchase?  

The client has a PowerEdge 2600 and they STILL want Dell. Again, if it
were my pocketbook, Dell would not be there. 

The client has a 30GB DB. This is large for me, but probably not with
you. Also, I am advising the client to go to a 10+ disc array (from 3)
and enough RAM to load half the DB into memory. 

Steve




On Thu, 2006-06-15 at 12:22 -0400, Vivek Khera wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
> 
> >
> > Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core
> > CPUs and/or Dell's new servers?
> 
> I'm one of the few Dell fans around here... but I must say that I  
> don't buy them for my big DB servers specifically since they don't  
> currently ship Opteron based systems.  (I did call and thank my sales  
> rep for pushing my case for them to do Opterons, though, since I'm  
> sure they are doing it as a personal favor to me :-) )
> 
> I just put up a pentium-D dual-core based system and it is pretty  
> wickedly fast.  it only has a pair of SATA drives on it and is used  
> for pre-production testing.
> 
> >
> > I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD
> > Opeteron-based server.
> 
> Don't wait.  It will be *months* before that happens. Go get a Sun  
> X4100 and an external RAID array and be happy.  These boxes are an  
> amazing work of engineering.
> 


---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

   http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Vivek Khera]

On Jun 13, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Steve Poe wrote:



Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core
CPUs and/or Dell's new servers?


I'm one of the few Dell fans around here... but I must say that I  
don't buy them for my big DB servers specifically since they don't  
currently ship Opteron based systems.  (I did call and thank my sales  
rep for pushing my case for them to do Opterons, though, since I'm  
sure they are doing it as a personal favor to me :-) )


I just put up a pentium-D dual-core based system and it is pretty  
wickedly fast.  it only has a pair of SATA drives on it and is used  
for pre-production testing.




I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD
Opeteron-based server.


Don't wait.  It will be *months* before that happens. Go get a Sun  
X4100 and an external RAID array and be happy.  These boxes are an  
amazing work of engineering.




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Dave Page]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 14 June 2006 20:52
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Joshua D. Drake; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 
> pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
> 
> 
> Yeah, We've got a mix of 2650 and 2850s, and our 2850s have been rock
> solid stable, unlike the 2650s.  I was actually kinda surprised to see
> how many people have problems with the 2850s.
> 
> Apparently, the 2850 mobos have a built in RAID that's pretty stable
> (it's got a PERC number I can't remembeR), but ordering them 
> with an add
> on Perc RAID controller appears to make them somewhat 
> unstable as well.

That might be it - we always chose the onboard PERC because it has twice
the cache of the other options. 

Regards, Dave.

---(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 processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Scott Marlowe]

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 13:43, Dave Page wrote:
>  

> 
> Just thought I'd point you to Dell's forums.
> 
> 
> http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board?board.id=pes_linux&page=1
> 
> wherein you'll find plenty of folks who have problems with
> freezing RAID
> controllers with 28xx and 18xx machines. 
>  
> 
> Never had any such problems in the dozen or so machines we run
> (about a 50-50 split of Linux to Windows). 
> 
> Regards, Dave
> 

Yeah, We've got a mix of 2650 and 2850s, and our 2850s have been rock
solid stable, unlike the 2650s.  I was actually kinda surprised to see
how many people have problems with the 2850s.

Apparently, the 2850 mobos have a built in RAID that's pretty stable
(it's got a PERC number I can't remembeR), but ordering them with an add
on Perc RAID controller appears to make them somewhat unstable as well.

On recommendation I've seen repeatedly is to use the --noapic option at
boot time.

Just FYI

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Dave Page]

Title: RE: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?



 

  
  
  From: Scott Marlowe 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 14 June 2006 
  18:04To: Dave PageCc: Joshua D. Drake; 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-performance@postgresql.orgSubject: RE: 
  [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
  
  On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:11, Dave Page 
  wrote:> > > -Original Message-> And 
  how old are the 2600's now?>> Anyhoo, I'm not saying the current 
  machines are excellent performers or> anything, but there are good 
  business reasons to run them if you don't> need to squeeze out every 
  last pony.Just thought I'd point you to Dell's 
  forums.http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board?board.id=pes_linux&page=1wherein you'll find plenty of folks who have problems with freezing 
  RAIDcontrollers with 28xx and 18xx machines.  
Never had any such problems in the dozen or so 
machines we run (about a 50-50 split of Linux to 
Windows). 
Regards, Dave

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Scott Marlowe]

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 15:11, Dave Page wrote:
>  
> > -Original Message-

> And how old are the 2600's now?
> 
> Anyhoo, I'm not saying the current machines are excellent performers or
> anything, but there are good business reasons to run them if you don't
> need to squeeze out every last pony.

Just thought I'd point you to Dell's forums.

http://forums.us.dell.com/supportforums/board?board.id=pes_linux&page=1

wherein you'll find plenty of folks who have problems with freezing RAID
controllers with 28xx and 18xx machines.  

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Steve Poe]

Dave, Joshua, Scott (and all),

Thanks for your feedback, while I do appreciate it, I did not intent on
making this discussion "buy this instead"...I whole-heartly agree with
you. Joshua, you made the best comment, it is a business decision for
the client. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. I've recommended
Sun or Penguin Computing which I've had no technical issues with. They
did not dispute my recommendation but they ignored it. I have not like
Dell, on the server side, since 1998 - 2000 time period.

Excluding Dell's issues, has anyone seen performance differences between
AMD's Opteron and Intel's new Xeon's (dual or quad CPU or dual-core). If
anyone has done benchmark comparisons between them, any summary
information would be appreciated.

For now, I am asking the client to hold-off and wait for the AMD Opteron
availability on the Dell servers.

Thanks again.

Steve




---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Jim C. Nasby]

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 12:44:17PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> You can get extremely competitive quotes from IBM or HP as long as you 
> say, "You are competing against Dell".

Possibly even more competitive from Sun...
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pervasive Software  http://pervasive.comwork: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf   cell: 512-569-9461

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Dave Page]

 

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Joshua D. Drake
> Sent: 13 June 2006 20:44
> To: Scott Marlowe
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?
> 
> They probably do. They have probably standardized on Dell 
> hardware. It 
> is technically a dumb reason, but from a business standpoint 
> it makes sense.

We use Dell here for those reasons these days, but thankfully are able
to suitably overspec everything to allow for significant growth and any
minor performance issues that they may have (we've never seen any
though). In Dell's defence we've never had a single problem with the
2850's or 1850's we're running which have all been rock solid. They also
have excellent OOB management in their DRAC cards - far better than that
in the slightly older Intel boxes we also run. That is a big selling
point for us.

> You can get extremely competitive quotes from IBM or HP as 
> long as you 
> say, "You are competing against Dell".

Dell beat them hands down in our experience - and yes, we have had
numerous quotes for HP and IBM kit, each of them knowing they are
competing against Dell.

> > Dells tend to perform poorly, period.  They choose low end 
> parts (the
> > 2600's Serverworks chipset is widely regarded as one of the slowest
> > chipset for the P-IV there is.) and then mucking around 
> with the BIOS of
> > the add in cards to make them somewhat stable with their 
> dodgy hardware.
> 
> I can confirm this.

And how old are the 2600's now?

Anyhoo, I'm not saying the current machines are excellent performers or
anything, but there are good business reasons to run them if you don't
need to squeeze out every last pony.

Regards, Dave.

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Joshua D. Drake]

Scott Marlowe wrote:

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:02, Steve Poe wrote:

I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database
(required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server.
They are insistent on Dell.


Do they have a logical reason for this, or is it mostly hand-waving? 


They probably do. They have probably standardized on Dell hardware. It 
is technically a dumb reason, but from a business standpoint it makes sense.


 My

experience has been hand waving.  Last company I was at, the CIO bragged
about having saved a million a year on server by going with Dell.  His
numbers were made up, and, in fact, we spent a large portion of each
week babysitting those god awful 2600 series machines with adaptec cards
and the serverworks chipset.  And they were slow compared to anything
else with similar specs.


You can get extremely competitive quotes from IBM or HP as long as you 
say, "You are competing against Dell".



Dells tend to perform poorly, period.  They choose low end parts (the
2600's Serverworks chipset is widely regarded as one of the slowest
chipset for the P-IV there is.) and then mucking around with the BIOS of
the add in cards to make them somewhat stable with their dodgy hardware.


I can confirm this.


I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD
Opeteron-based server.


Tell them to go with an HP DL 385. They will be much happier.

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/



---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Bruce Momjian]

David Boreham wrote:
> 
> >My suggestion is to look at something like this:
> >
> >http://www.abmx.com/1u-supermicro-amd-opteron-rackmount-server-p-210.html
> >
> >1U rackmount opteron from Supermicro that can have two dual core
> >opterons and 4 drives and up to 16 gigs of ram.  Supermicro server
> >motherboards have always treated me well and performed well too.
> >  
> >
> I've had good experience with similar machines from Tyan :
> http://www.tyan.com/products/html/gt24b2891.html

In fact I think Tyan makes the Supermicro motherboards.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian   http://candle.pha.pa.us
  EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

   http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[David Boreham]

My suggestion is to look at something like this:

http://www.abmx.com/1u-supermicro-amd-opteron-rackmount-server-p-210.html

1U rackmount opteron from Supermicro that can have two dual core
opterons and 4 drives and up to 16 gigs of ram.  Supermicro server
motherboards have always treated me well and performed well too.
 


I've had good experience with similar machines from Tyan :
http://www.tyan.com/products/html/gt24b2891.html





---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?

  http://archives.postgresql.org

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Chris Browne]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Poe) writes:
> I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database
> (required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server.
> They are insistent on Dell.

Then they're being insistent on poor performance.

If you search for "dell postgresql performance" you'll find plenty of
examples of people who have been disappointed when they insisted on
Dell for PostgreSQL.

Here is a *long* thread on the matter...


> I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD
> Opeteron-based server.

Based on Dell's history, I would neither:

 a) Hold my breath, nor

 b) Expect an Opteron-based Dell server to perform as well as
seemingly-equivalent servers provisioned by other vendors.

We got burned by some Celestica-built Opterons that didn't turn out
quite as hoped.

We have had somewhat better results with some HP Opterons; they appear
to be surviving less-than-ideal 3rd world data centre situations with
reasonable aplomb.  (Based on the amount of dust in their diet, I'm
somewhat surprised the disk drives are still running...)
-- 
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
We are Pentium of Borg.  Division is futile. You will be approximated.
(seen in someone's .signature)

---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Re: [PERFORM] Which processor runs better for Postgresql?

[Scott Marlowe]

On Tue, 2006-06-13 at 13:02, Steve Poe wrote:
> I have a client who is running Postgresql 7.4.x series database
> (required to use 7.4.x). They are planning an upgrade to a new server.
> They are insistent on Dell.

Do they have a logical reason for this, or is it mostly hand-waving?  My
experience has been hand waving.  Last company I was at, the CIO bragged
about having saved a million a year on server by going with Dell.  His
numbers were made up, and, in fact, we spent a large portion of each
week babysitting those god awful 2600 series machines with adaptec cards
and the serverworks chipset.  And they were slow compared to anything
else with similar specs.

> I have personal experience with AMD dual Opteron, but I have not seen
> any benchmarks on Intel's dual core Xeon. I've seen in the past Dell and
> not performed well as well as Xeon's HT issues.

Dells tend to perform poorly, period.  They choose low end parts (the
2600's Serverworks chipset is widely regarded as one of the slowest
chipset for the P-IV there is.) and then mucking around with the BIOS of
the add in cards to make them somewhat stable with their dodgy hardware.

> Can anyone share what their experience has been with Intel's dual core
> CPUs and/or Dell's new servers?

Haven't used the dual core Dells.  Latest ones I've used are the dual
Xeon 2850 machines, which are at least stable, if still pretty pokey.

> I am hoping the client is willing to wait for Dell to ship a AMD
> Opeteron-based server.

Let's just hope Dell hasn't spent all this time hamstringing a good chip
with low end, underperforming hardware, eh?

My suggestion is to look at something like this:

http://www.abmx.com/1u-supermicro-amd-opteron-rackmount-server-p-210.html

1U rackmount opteron from Supermicro that can have two dual core
opterons and 4 drives and up to 16 gigs of ram.  Supermicro server
motherboards have always treated me well and performed well too.

---(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