On 23-Sep-06, at 9:49 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
On 9/23/06, Dave Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
1) The database fits entirely in memory, so this is really only
testing CPU, not I/O which should be taken into account IMO
I don't think this really is a reason that MySQL broke down on ten or
more concurrent connections. The RAM might be, bu
On 23-Sep-06, at 9:00 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote:
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other "benchmarks"
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ..
I find the benchmark much more interesting in comparing PostgreSQL to
MySQL than Intel to AMD. It might be as biased as other "benchmarks"
but it shows clearly something that a lot of PostgreSQL user always
thought: MySQL gives up on concurrency ... it just doesn't scale well.
cug
On 9/23/06, [
On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 11:50:47PM +0200, Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
> If you're an AMD-fan, by all means, buy their products, those processors
> are indeed fast and you can build decent servers with them. But don't
> rule out Intel, just because with previous processors they were the
> slower
On 22-9-2006 22:34 Vivek Khera wrote:
so you think AMD is just sitting around twiddling their thumbs and
saying "well, time to give up since Intel is faster today". no. there
will be back-and forth between these two vendors to our benefit. I
would expect next-gen AMD chips to be faster than
On Sep 22, 2006, at 4:58 AM, nicky wrote:
till 100 simultaneous visitors, the Xeon performs 24% better with
MSQL 4.1.20, 30% better in MySQL 5.0.20a and 37% better in
PostgreSQL 8.2-dev. In short, the Socket F Opteron doesn't stand a
chance, although the Woodcrest scales better and has suc
Hello Hannes,
The text above the pictures on page 13. Translated in my crappy english.
The confrontation between the Opteron and Woodcrest was inevitable in
this article, but who can add 1 and 1 should have known from the
previous two pages that it doesn't look that good for AMD . Under loads
Try the translation ;)
http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/13
On 22-9-2006 10:32 Hannes Dorbath wrote:
A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
"benchmark" was about.
Their diagrams show
A colleague pointed me to this site tomorrow:
http://tweakers.net/reviews/642/13
I can't read the language, so can't get a grip on what exactly the
"benchmark" was about.
Their diagrams show `Request per seconds'. What should that mean? How
many connections PG accepted per second? So they me
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Sander Røsnes):
> On Wednesday 20 April 2005 17:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Anjan Dave wrote:
>> > In terms of vendor specific models -
>> >
>> > Does anyone have any good/bad experiences/recommendations for a
>> > 4-way Opteron from Sun (v40z, 6 internal drives)
Josh Berkus writes:
> Last I checked, the v40z only takes 5 drives, unless you yank the cd-rom and
> get an extra disk tray. That's the main defect of the model, the second
> being its truly phenominal noise level. Other than that (and price) and
> excellent Opteron machine.
Incidentally,
There have been some discussions on this list and others in general about
Dell's version of RAID cards, and server support, mainly linux support.
I was pretty impressed with the Dell guy. He spent the day with me remotely
and went through my system 6650 with powervault. Changed my drives from ext3
On 4/20/05, Anjan Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In terms of vendor specific models -
>
> Does anyone have any good/bad experiences/recommendations for a 4-way
> Opteron from Sun (v40z, 6 internal drives) or HP (DL585 5 internal
> drives) models?
We are going with the 90nm HPs for production.
> The HPs are at root pretty good machines -- and take 6 drives, so I expect
> you're mixed up there. However, they use HP's proprietary RAID controller
> which is seriously defective. So you need to factor replacing the RAID
> controller into the cost.
Do you have any additional materials o
Anjan,
> Does anyone have any good/bad experiences/recommendations for a 4-way
> Opteron from Sun (v40z, 6 internal drives) or HP (DL585 5 internal
> drives) models?
Last I checked, the v40z only takes 5 drives, unless you yank the cd-rom and
get an extra disk tray. That's the main defect of t
20, 2005 12:14 PM
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?)
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 17:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anjan Dave wrote:
> > In terms of vendor specific models -
> >
> >
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 17:50, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Anjan Dave wrote:
> > In terms of vendor specific models -
> >
> > Does anyone have any good/bad experiences/recommendations for a 4-way
> > Opteron from Sun (v40z, 6 internal drives) or HP (DL585 5 internal
> > drives) models?
> >
> > This i
Anjan Dave wrote:
> In terms of vendor specific models -
>
> Does anyone have any good/bad experiences/recommendations for a 4-way
> Opteron from Sun (v40z, 6 internal drives) or HP (DL585 5 internal
> drives) models?
>
> This is in comparison with the new Dell 6850 (it has PCIexpress, faster
> F
ch up with AMD's total IO bandwidth, but
much better than previous 6650s).
Thanks,
Anjan
-Original Message-
From: William Yu [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 11:10 AM
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to
On Apr 20, 2005, at 12:40 AM, Jeff Frost wrote:
I've seen quite a few folks touting the Opteron as 2.5x faster with
postgres than a Xeon box. What makes the Opteron so quick? Is it
that Postgres really prefers to run in 64-bit mode?
The I/O path on the opterons seems to be much faster, and hav
I posted this link a few months ago and there was some surprise over the
difference in postgresql compared to other DBs. (Not much surprise in
Opteron stomping on Xeon in pgsql as most people here have had that
experience -- the surprise was in how much smaller the difference was in
other DBs.)
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:
I don't know about 2.5x faster (perhaps on specific types of loads), but the
reason Opterons rock for database applications is their insanely good memory
bandwidth and latency that scales much better than the Xeon. Opterons also
have a ccNUMA-esque I
I've seen quite a few folks touting the Opteron as 2.5x
faster with postgres than a Xeon box. What makes the
Opteron so quick? Is it that Postgres really prefers to
run in 64-bit mode?
I don't know about 2.5x faster (perhaps on specific types
of loads), but the reason Opterons rock for datab
RAID1 2 disks OS, pg_xlog
RAID 1+0 4 disks pgdata
Looks like the consensus is RAID 1 for OS, pg_xlog and RAID10 for pgdata. Now
here's another performance related question:
I've seen quite a few folks touting the Opteron as 2.5x faster with postgres
than a Xeon box. What makes the Opteron so q
25 matches
Mail list logo
