On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
>>
export OMP_NUM_THREADS=4
>>>
>>> Then I get the following. The rather wierd dip at 5 threads is consistent
>>> over multiple tries:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 6:41 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
export OMP_NUM_THREADS=4
Then I get the following. The rather wierd dip at 5 threads is consistent
over multiple tries:
I get similar dips on my server. Especially as you make the stream
test write a la
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
your i860? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_i860 wow!. :D
That's supposed to be i7-860:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_microprocessors
It was a whole $199, so not an expensive processor.
Now, seriously: what memory (brand/mode
And, I have zone reclaim set to off because it makes the linux kernel
on large cpu machines make pathologically unsound decisions during
large file transfers.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.
Note that in that graph, the odd dips are happening every 8 cores on a
system with 4 12 core processors. I don't know why, I would expect it
to be every 6 or something.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>>
>> The rather wierd dip at 5 threads is consistent over multiple tries
>
> I've seen that twice on 4 core systems now. The spot where there's just one
> more thread than cores seems to be the worst case for cache thr
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
Ok, this could explain the huge difference. I was planing on getting
GigaByte GA-890GPA-UD3H, with a Phenom II X6 and that ram: Crucial
CT2KIT25664BA1339, Crucial BL2KIT25664FN1608, or something better I
find when I get enough money (depending on my budget a
Hi!
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:11 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>>
>> Yeb Havinga wrote:
>>>
>>> model name : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor @ 3.00GHz
>>> cpu cores : 4
>>> stream compiled with -O3
>>> Function Rate (MB/s) Avg time Min time Max time
>>>
Yeb Havinga wrote:
The rather wierd dip at 5 threads is consistent over multiple tries
I've seen that twice on 4 core systems now. The spot where there's just
one more thread than cores seems to be the worst case for cache
thrashing on a lot of these servers.
How much total RAM is in this
Greg Smith wrote:
Yeb Havinga wrote:
model name : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor @ 3.00GHz
cpu cores : 4
stream compiled with -O3
Function Rate (MB/s) Avg time Min time Max time
Triad: 5395.1815 0.0089 0.0089 0.0089
I'm not sure if Yeb's st
Hi!
Thanks for the review link!
Ildefonso.
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> This isn't an older Opteron, its 6 core, 6MB L3 cache "Istanbul". Its not
> the newer stuff either.
>
>
> Everything before Magny Cours is now an older Optero
Clemens Eisserer wrote:
Hi,
This isn't an older Opteron, its 6 core, 6MB L3 cache "Istanbul". Its not
the newer stuff either.
Everything before Magny Cours is now an older Opteron from my perspective.
The 6-cores are identical to Magny Cours (except that Magny Cours has
two o
Hi,
>> This isn't an older Opteron, its 6 core, 6MB L3 cache "Istanbul". Its not
>> the newer stuff either.
>
> Everything before Magny Cours is now an older Opteron from my perspective.
The 6-cores are identical to Magny Cours (except that Magny Cours has
two of those beast in one package).
-
Hi!
Thanks you all for this great amount of information!
What memory/motherboard (ie, chipset) is installed on the phenom ii one?
it looks like it peaks to ~6.2GB/s with 4 threads.
Also, what kernel is on it? (uname -a would be nice).
Now, this looks like sustained memory speed, what about ran
Yeb Havinga wrote:
model name : AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 940 Processor @ 3.00GHz
cpu cores : 4
stream compiled with -O3
Function Rate (MB/s) Avg time Min time Max time
Triad: 5395.1815 0.0089 0.0089 0.0089
For comparison sake, an only moderately e
Scott Carey wrote:
The 2427 should do 12.8 GB/sec theoretical peak (dual channel 800Mhz DDR2) per
processor socket (so 2x that if multithreaded and 2 Sockets).
A Nehalem will do ~2x that (triple channel, 1066Mhz) and is also significantly
faster clock for clock.
But a Core2 based Xeon on Sock
Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
four parallel
r...@p:~/ff/www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/FTP/Code# ./a.out & ./a.out & ./a.out
& ./a.out
You know you can just do "stream 4" to get 4 parallel streams right?
Which version is that? The stream.c sou
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Yeb Havinga wrote:
> four parallel
> r...@p:~/ff/www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/FTP/Code# ./a.out & ./a.out & ./a.out
> & ./a.out
You know you can just do "stream 4" to get 4 parallel streams right?
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postg
On Aug 27, 2010, at 10:25 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Scott Carey wrote:
>> But the select count(*) query, cached in RAM is 3x faster in one system than
>> the other. The CPUs aren't 3x different performance wise. Something else
>> may be wrong here.
>>
>> An individual Core2 Duo 2.93Ghz should
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
Also, nowadays, Intel has better performance than AMD, at least when
comparing Athlon 64 vs Core2, I'm still saving to get a Phenom II
system in order to benchmark them and see how it goes (does anyone
have one of these for testing?).
r...@p:~/ff/www.cs.virgi
Greg Smith wrote:
He's been seeing >75GB/s of aggregate memory bandwidth out of that
monster--using gcc, so even at a disadvantage compared to the Intel
one used for that report.
On second read this was confusing. The best STREAM results from using
the Intel compiler on Linux. The ones I've
Jose Ildefonso Camargo Tolosa wrote:
Also, nowadays, Intel has better performance than AMD, at least when
comparing Athlon 64 vs Core2, I'm still saving to get a Phenom II
system in order to benchmark them and see how it goes (does anyone
have one of these for testing?).
Things even out agai
Hi!
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 12:55 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Scott Carey wrote:
>>
>> But the select count(*) query, cached in RAM is 3x faster in one system
>> than the other. The CPUs aren't 3x different performance wise. Something
>> else may be wrong here.
>>
>> An individual Core2 Duo 2.93Ghz
Scott Carey wrote:
But the select count(*) query, cached in RAM is 3x faster in one system than
the other. The CPUs aren't 3x different performance wise. Something else may
be wrong here.
An individual Core2 Duo 2.93Ghz should be at most 50% faster than a 2.2Ghz
Opteron for such a query.
On Aug 19, 2010, at 11:25 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Philippe Rimbault wrote:
>> I've run "time pgbench -c 50" :
>>server x64 :
>>starting vacuum...end.
>>transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
>>scaling factor: 1
>>query mode: simple
>>number of clients: 50
>>
Greg Smith wrote:
Since your smaller system has 2GB of RAM and the larger one 32GB, try
this instead:
pgbench -i -s 2000
pgbench -c 24 -T 60 -S
pgbench -c 24 -T 300
Oh, and to at least give a somewhat more normal postgresql.conf I'd
recommend you at least make the following two changes befor
Philippe Rimbault wrote:
I've run "time pgbench -c 50" :
server x64 :
starting vacuum...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 1
query mode: simple
number of clients: 50
number of transactions per client: 10
number of tra
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 4:23 AM, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
>> So how are the disks setup anyway?
>>
>
> Thanks for your reply !
>
> The server use a HP Smart Array P410 with a Raid 5 array on Sata 133 disk.
If you can change that to RAID-10 do so now. RAID-5 is notoriously
slow for database use,
On 19/08/2010 12:23, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
On 19/08/2010 11:51, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Philippe Rimbault
wrote:
Hi,
I'm having a strange performance result on a new database server
compared to
my simple desktop.
The configuration of the new server :
-
On 19/08/2010 11:51, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
Hi,
I'm having a strange performance result on a new database server compared to
my simple desktop.
The configuration of the new server :
- OS : GNU/Linux Debian Etch x86_64
- kerne
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Philippe Rimbault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm having a strange performance result on a new database server compared to
> my simple desktop.
>
> The configuration of the new server :
> - OS : GNU/Linux Debian Etch x86_64
> - kernel : Linux 2.6.26-2-vserver-amd64 #1 S
Hi,
I'm having a strange performance result on a new database server
compared to my simple desktop.
The configuration of the new server :
- OS : GNU/Linux Debian Etch x86_64
- kernel : Linux 2.6.26-2-vserver-amd64 #1 SMP Sun Jun 20 20:40:33
UTC 2010 x86_64 GNU/Linux
(tests ar
32 matches
Mail list logo
