On 23/07/15 23:37, domenico febbo wrote:
is the problem also in PostgreSQL 9.4.x?
I'm going to buy a production's server with 4 sockets E7-4850 12 cores
so 12*4 = 48 cores (and 96 threads using HT).
What do you suggest?
Using or not HT?
From my experience 9.4 is considerably better (we are us
On 23 Jul 2015, at 13:37, domenico febbo wrote:
> is the problem also in PostgreSQL 9.4.x?
> I'm going to buy a production's server with 4 sockets E7-4850 12 cores
> so 12*4 = 48 cores (and 96 threads using HT).
>
> What do you suggest?
> Using or not HT?
>
> BR
1. If you have enough money to
is the problem also in PostgreSQL 9.4.x?
I'm going to buy a production's server with 4 sockets E7-4850 12 cores
so 12*4 = 48 cores (and 96 threads using HT).
What do you suggest?
Using or not HT?
BR
Domenico
2015-07-21 11:07 GMT+02:00 Mark Kirkwood :
> On 21/07/15 20:04, David Rowley wrote:
>>
>
On 21/07/15 20:04, David Rowley wrote:
On 21 July 2015 at 14:59, Jeison Bedoya Delgado
mailto:jeis...@audifarma.com.co>> wrote:
hi everyone,
Recently update a database to machine with RHEL7, but i see that the
performance is betther if the hyperthreading tecnology is
deactivated
On 21 July 2015 at 14:59, Jeison Bedoya Delgado
wrote:
> hi everyone,
>
> Recently update a database to machine with RHEL7, but i see that the
> performance is betther if the hyperthreading tecnology is deactivated and
> use only 32 cores.
>
> is normal that the machine performance is better with
hi everyone,
Recently update a database to machine with RHEL7, but i see that the
performance is betther if the hyperthreading tecnology is deactivated
and use only 32 cores.
is normal that the machine performance is better with 32 cores that 64
cores?.
BD: postgresql 9.3.5
Machine: Dell P
