On Sep 21, 2007, at 6:40 AM, Eric Anderson wrote:
It would be good if someone could do a database benchmark for some
of the larger parts.
Something else worth mentioning... a lot of work is being done to
improve PostgreSQL scalability for larger numbers of CPUs. If
you're looking at anything
Decibel! wrote:
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Palle Girgensohn wrote:
--On torsdag, torsdag 13 sep 2007 15.07.17 -0400 Francisco Reyes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for
performance
From what I have read in the
> > I think this is not current information; the new woodcrest
> > architecture performs mucg better, although this is deduced from
> > this thread's discussion...
>
> Except this thread has largely glossed over the importance of memory
> bandwidth, which is exactly the reason why Opterons have bee
On Sep 13, 2007, at 3:24 PM, Palle Girgensohn wrote:
--On torsdag, torsdag 13 sep 2007 15.07.17 -0400 Francisco Reyes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for
performance
From what I have read in the past, specially
On Sep 14, 2007, at 6:44 PM, Francisco Reyes wrote:
Palle Girgensohn writes:
We will probably go for SCSI. HP DL380 with "HP SmartArray", aka
ciss.
How will you monitor disk failures? Does that controller can be
monitored with FreeBSD in some way?
The disk failures show up in the
--On fredag, september 14, 2007 18.44.35 -0400 Francisco Reyes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Sorry, my mistake, more like a percent per day at the moment...
If you have 16GB and you got 1% per day.. in less than 100 days you would
be at 32GB.. If growth continues y
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Sorry, my mistake, more like a percent per day at the moment...
If you have 16GB and you got 1% per day.. in less than 100 days you would be
at 32GB.. If growth continues you will theoretically be at 60GB+ within a
year.
We are planning about 16 GB RAM, actuall
> > Obviously if you can afford SCSI/SAS performance will likely be even
> > better. However make sure you can get management program for the
> > controller. At the very least some type of notification if the raid is
> > degraded.
>
> We will probably go for SCSI. HP DL380 with "HP SmartArray", aka
--On torsdag, torsdag 13 sep 2007 19.44.50 -0400 Francisco Reyes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Presently ~pgsql/data has a 16 GB footprint.
If you can put 4GB or better in your machine you should do well.
Specially since you mentioned you are mostly read with relati
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Presently ~pgsql/data has a 16 GB footprint.
If you can put 4GB or better in your machine you should do well.
Specially since you mentioned you are mostly read with relatively small
amount of writes.
The growth is rather slow, around a percent per week
What cont
--On torsdag, torsdag 13 sep 2007 15.07.17 -0400 Francisco Reyes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for
performance
From what I have read in the past, specially in the postgresql list, it
seems the AMD64 cpus do b
Palle Girgensohn writes:
Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for performance
From what I have read in the past, specially in the postgresql list, it
seems the AMD64 cpus do better with Postgresql. Possibly because of better
bus architecture.
Personally I think having
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 08:57:32AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> >> It seems that Broadcom is back into this game.
> >
> > So far the Broadcom Serverworks HT1000 SATA controller is POO.
> > I'm seeing all kinds of disk corruption with FreeBSD on a Tyan s3992.
> > Googling shows that other Fre
--On onsdag, september 12, 2007 16.08.48 -0700 David O'Brien
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 08:57:32AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
It seems that Broadcom is back into this game.
So far the Broadcom Serverworks HT1000 SATA controller is POO.
I'm seeing all kinds of di
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
* Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070910 16:32] wrote:
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Palle,
I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my
understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town.
For a database, the more memory you can get, the bet
* Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070910 16:32] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >Palle,
> >
> >I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my
> >understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town.
> >
> >For a database, the more memory you can get, the better.
> >
On Tue, Sep 11, 2007 at 08:57:32AM +0800, Erich Dollansky wrote:
> It seems that Broadcom is back into this game.
So far the Broadcom Serverworks HT1000 SATA controller is POO.
I'm seeing all kinds of disk corruption with FreeBSD on a Tyan s3992.
Googling shows that other FreeBSD users have been l
Paul Pathiakis wrote on Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 07:11:27PM -0400:
> On Monday 10 September 2007 14:46:21 Martin Cracauer wrote:
> > For integer workloads Intel's Core2-base Xeons outperforms K8 (the
> > old-school AMD64) by about 25-30% per clock per core. K10 seems to be
> > 5-15% faster than K8 fo
On 9/10/07, Ivan Voras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Palle Girgensohn wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are looking at getting a server for running postgresql. Only
> > postgresql, a dedicated machine. Since we know FreeBSD very well, we
> > plan on using it as the OS.
>
> You might want to wait a little un
Palle Girgensohn wrote:
Hi,
We are looking at getting a server for running postgresql. Only
postgresql, a dedicated machine. Since we know FreeBSD very well, we
plan on using it as the OS.
You might want to wait a little until 7.0 or until some more important
bits get MFC'ed to 6.x:
http:
> Palle,
>
> I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my
> understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town.
>
Pls. don't top post!!
>
> -Alfred
>
> * Palle Girgensohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070910 03:16] wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We are looking at getting a server fo
Hi,
Martin Cracauer wrote:
For integer workloads Intel's Core2-base Xeons outperforms K8 (the
old-school AMD64) by about 25-30% per clock per core. K10 seems to be
5-15% faster than K8 for integer workloads (I hope to run my benchmark
suite on one thi week or weekend).
the guys at heise.de pu
On Monday 10 September 2007 14:46:21 Martin Cracauer wrote:
> For integer workloads Intel's Core2-base Xeons outperforms K8 (the
> old-school AMD64) by about 25-30% per clock per core. K10 seems to be
> 5-15% faster than K8 for integer workloads (I hope to run my benchmark
> suite on one thi week
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
Palle,
I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my
understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town.
For a database, the more memory you can get, the better.
I've found many machines with 4 gigs of ram to not be enough to
get decent per
Palle,
I really haven't kept pace with Intel versus AMD in a while, my
understanding is that AMD is still the only 64bit game in town.
For a database, the more memory you can get, the better.
I've found many machines with 4 gigs of ram to not be enough to
get decent performance from a database t
On Mon, September 10, 2007 11:46 am, Martin Cracauer wrote:
> On the other hand, if you want K8 or K10 in a modern SMP mainboard you
> have to live with NVidia for chipsets, and the socket F boards all have
> the MPC55 SATA controller, which iirc is unsupported by both BSD and
> Linux. MPC65 moved
For integer workloads Intel's Core2-base Xeons outperforms K8 (the
old-school AMD64) by about 25-30% per clock per core. K10 seems to be
5-15% faster than K8 for integer workloads (I hope to run my benchmark
suite on one thi week or weekend).
However, tasks that use multiple cores and have thread
Be very, very careful in purchasing Core 2 Duo. There are major
problems with the chip that have been documented across the board.
Many, many people are steering clear of the chip for at least a year.
This brings up a simple thought... is it better to stick with a tried
and true chip at pre
Hi,
We are looking at getting a server for running postgresql. Only postgresql,
a dedicated machine. Since we know FreeBSD very well, we plan on using it
as the OS.
We have an offer for an IBM server, x3650, with 2 * DC Intel Xeon 5160,
Raid with two clusters, one for database and one for xl
Hi,
Palle Girgensohn wrote:
Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for
performance reasons. Any comments on that? Are we better off getting AMD
processors, when running Unix?
AMD announced today the new quad core. Their benchmarks are promising.
But not the dual core ve
--On måndag, september 10, 2007 18.32.18 +0800 Erich Dollansky
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Palle Girgensohn wrote:
Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for
performance reasons. Any comments on that? Are we better off getting AMD
processors, when running Unix?
AMD
Hi,
Palle Girgensohn wrote:
Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for
performance reasons. Any comments on that? Are we better off getting AMD
processors, when running Unix?
AMD announced today the new quad core. Their benchmarks are promising.
But not the dual core ver
> We are looking at getting a server for running postgresql. Only postgresql,
> a dedicated machine. Since we know FreeBSD very well, we plan on using it
> as the OS.
>
> We have an offer for an IBM server, x3650, with 2 * DC Intel Xeon 5160,
> Raid with two clusters, one for database and one for x
Hi,
We are looking at getting a server for running postgresql. Only postgresql,
a dedicated machine. Since we know FreeBSD very well, we plan on using it
as the OS.
We have an offer for an IBM server, x3650, with 2 * DC Intel Xeon 5160,
Raid with two clusters, one for database and one for xl
34 matches
Mail list logo
