On Fri, 10 Oct 2008, Bart Grantham wrote:
The Opterons are 2220 SE's, the Xeons are 5450's I think (family 15, model
6).
Xeon - 3056 MB in 2.00 seconds = 1527.85 MB/sec
Opteron - 4944 MB in 2.00 seconds = 2472.50 MB/sec
There's something wrong with that Xeon system. That number should be
Forgive me if this has been beaten into the ground, but my team and I couldn't
find much conclusive study or posts on this issue. To make a long story short:
we're experiencing Xeons as 50% slower than Opterons, even when the Xeon has
twice as much cache and a slight clock speed advantage.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Bart Grantham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Forgive me if this has been beaten into the ground, but my team and I
couldn't find much conclusive study or posts on this issue. To make a long
story short: we're experiencing Xeons as 50% slower than Opterons, even when
How do you manage the wal in both servers?
The version kernel is the same in both?
Runs the same services?
Do you make some test with Posgresql only in both servers?
If the problem is the inter-CPU, i know you can specified the number
of processors
do you want to run dedicated to one process.
Bart Grantham wrote:
Forgive me if this has been beaten into the ground, but my team and I
couldn’t find much conclusive study or posts on this issue. To make a
long story short: we’re experiencing Xeons as 50% slower than Opterons,
even when the Xeon has twice as much cache and a slight
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Bart Grantham wrote:
The full story: we have an older production server with 2G of RAM,
2.4GHz Opterons w/ 1M of cache...The newer servers have 4G of RAM,
3.0GHz Xeons with 2M of cache.
Model numbers please? I can probably guess for the Opterons, there are a
lot of
Bart Grantham wrote:
a long story short: we're experiencing Xeons as 50% slower than
Opterons, even when the Xeon has twice as much cache and a slight
clock speed advantage.
tests I finally took the final leap: just pull the disks and throw
them in a newer Opteron chassis (2.8GHz, 1M cache).
When i question about WAL, i mean if WAL is in other drive.
You must run a benchmark more expensive to cpu for make a conclusion.
Make a query that have more of 8 seconds, then you can see really if
exists a diference
in other way... i think you don't use the same image of the old server
in the
