On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 18:55, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 01:33:38PM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-04-25 at 13:14, Bill Moran wrote: > > > I've been given the task of making some hardware recommendations for > > > the next round of server purchases. The machines to be purchased > > > will be running FreeBSD & PostgreSQL. > > > > > > Where I'm stuck is in deciding whether we want to go with dual-core > > > pentiums with 2M cache, or with HT pentiums with 8M cache. > > > > Given a choice between those two processors, I'd choose the AMD 64 x 2 > > CPU. It's a significantly better processor than either of the Intel > > choices. And if you get the HT processor, you might as well turn of HT > > on a PostgreSQL machine. I've yet to see it make postgresql run faster, > > but I've certainly seen HT make it run slower. > > Actually, believe it or not, a coworker just saw HT double the > performance of pgbench on his desktop machine. Granted, not really a > representative test case, but it still blew my mind. This was with a > database that fit in his 1G of memory, and running windows XP. Both > cases were newly minted pgbench databases with a scale of 40. Testing > was 40 connections and 100 transactions. With HT he saw 47.6 TPS, > without it was 21.1. > > I actually had IT build put w2k3 server on a HT box specifically so I > could do more testing. Just to clarify, this is PostgreSQL on Windows, right? I wonder if the latest Linux kernel can do that well... I'm guessing that the kernel scheduler in Windows has had a lot of work to make it good at scheduling on a HT architecture than the linux kernel has.
