Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-14 Thread Scott Carey
On 5/13/09 11:21 PM, "Arjen van der Meijden" wrote: > On 13-5-2009 20:39 Scott Carey wrote: >> Excellent! That is a pretty huge boost. I'm curious which aspects of this >> new architecture helped the most. For Postgres, the following would seem >> the most relevant: >> 1. Shared L3 cache pe

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-14 Thread Scott Carey
On 5/13/09 11:52 PM, "Greg Smith" wrote: > On Wed, 13 May 2009, Scott Carey wrote: > >> Can you do a quick and dirty memory bandwidth test? (assuming linux) >> >> /sbin/hdparm -T /dev/sd >> >> ...its not a very accurate measurement, but its quick and highlights >> relative hardware difference

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-13 Thread Greg Smith
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Scott Carey wrote: Can you do a quick and dirty memory bandwidth test? (assuming linux) /sbin/hdparm -T /dev/sd ...its not a very accurate measurement, but its quick and highlights relative hardware differences very easily. I've found "hdparm -T" to be useful for compar

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-13 Thread Arjen van der Meijden
On 13-5-2009 20:39 Scott Carey wrote: Excellent! That is a pretty huge boost. I'm curious which aspects of this new architecture helped the most. For Postgres, the following would seem the most relevant: 1. Shared L3 cache per processors -- more efficient shared datastructure access. 2. Fas

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-13 Thread Scott Carey
FYI: This is an excellent article on the Nehalem CPU's and their memory performance as the CPU and RAM combinations change: http://blogs.sun.com/jnerl/entry/configuring_and_optimizing_intel_xeon Its fairly complicated (as it is for the Opteron too). On 5/13/09 9:58 AM, "Scott Carey" wrote: >

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-13 Thread Scott Carey
On 5/12/09 11:08 PM, "Arjen van der Meijden" wrote: > We have a dual E5540 with 16GB (I think 1066Mhz) memory here, but no AMD > Shanghai. We haven't done PostgreSQL benchmarks yet, but given the > previous experiences, PostgreSQL should be equally faster compared to mysql. > > Our databasebenc

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-13 Thread Scott Carey
On 5/12/09 10:06 PM, "Scott Marlowe" wrote: > Just realized I made a mistake, I was under the impression that > Shanghai CPUs had 8xxx numbers while barcelona had 23xx numbers. I > was wrong, it appears the 8xxx numbers are for 4+ socket servers while > the 23xx numbers are for 2 or fewer sock

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-13 Thread Arjen van der Meijden
We have a dual E5540 with 16GB (I think 1066Mhz) memory here, but no AMD Shanghai. We haven't done PostgreSQL benchmarks yet, but given the previous experiences, PostgreSQL should be equally faster compared to mysql. Our databasebenchmark is actually mostly a cpu/memory-benchmark. Comparing th

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-13 Thread Scott Marlowe
Just realized I made a mistake, I was under the impression that Shanghai CPUs had 8xxx numbers while barcelona had 23xx numbers. I was wrong, it appears the 8xxx numbers are for 4+ socket servers while the 23xx numbers are for 2 or fewer sockets. So, there are several quite affordable shanghai cp

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:59 PM, Scott Carey wrote: > The $ cost of more CPU power on larger machines ends up such a small % > chunk, especially after I/O cost.  Sure, the CPU with HyperThreading and the > turbo might be 40% more expensive than the other CPU, but if the total > system cost is 5% m

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-12 Thread Scott Carey
The $ cost of more CPU power on larger machines ends up such a small % chunk, especially after I/O cost. Sure, the CPU with HyperThreading and the turbo might be 40% more expensive than the other CPU, but if the total system cost is 5% more for 15% more performance . . . It depends on how CPU lim

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > Anand did SQL Server and Oracle test results, the Nehalem system looks like > a substantial improvement over the Shanghai Opteron 2384: > > http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3536&p=6 > http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3536&p=7

Re: [PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-12 Thread Greg Smith
Anand did SQL Server and Oracle test results, the Nehalem system looks like a substantial improvement over the Shanghai Opteron 2384: http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3536&p=6 http://it.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=3536&p=7 -- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.c

[PERFORM] AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem

2009-05-12 Thread Scott Marlowe
Anyone on the list had a chance to benchmark the Nehalem's yet? I'm primarily wondering if their promise of performance from 3 memory channels holds up under typical pgsql workloads. I've been really happy with the behavior of my AMD shanghai based server under heavy loads, but if the Nehalems mu