Re: 64-bit vs 32-bit performance ... backwards?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Alex Turner wrote:
Anyone who has tried x86-64 linux knows what a royal pain in the ass it is. They didn't do anything sensible, like just make the whole OS 64 bit, no, they had to split it up, and put 64-bit libs in a new directory /lib64. This means that a great many applications don't know to check in there for libs, and don't compile pleasantly, php is one among them. I forget what others, it's been awhile now. Of course if you actualy want to use more than 4gig RAM in a pleasant way, it's pretty much essential.

That depends entirely on what AMD64 distribution you use -- on a Debian or Ubuntu 64-bit system, the main system is pre 64-bit, with some (optional) add-on libraries in separate directories to provide some 32-bit compatibility.

On the performance stuff, my own testing of AMD64 on AMD's chips (not with PostgreSQL, but with various other things) has shown it to be about 10% faster on average. As Luke mentioned, this isn't because of any inherent advantage in 64-bit -- it's because AMD did some tweaking while they had the hood open, adding extra registers among other things.

I remember reading an article some time back comparing AMD's implementation to Intel's that showed that EM64T Xeons ran 64-bit code about 5-10% more slowly than they ran 32-bit code. I can't find the link now, but it may explain why some people are getting better performance with 64-bit (on Opterons), while others are finding it slower (on Xeons).

Thanks
Leigh

Alex.

On 6/12/06, *Steve Atkins* <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:steve@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:


    On Jun 12, 2006, at 6:15 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

     >
     >> Empirically... postgresql built for 64 bits is marginally slower
     >> than that built
     >> for a 32 bit api on sparc. None of my customers have found 64
    bit x86
     >> systems to be suitable for production use, yet, so I've not tested
     >> on any
     >> of those architectures.
     >
     > Really? All of our customers are migrating to Opteron and I have
     > many that have been using Opteron for over 12 months happily.

    An Opteron is 64 bit capable; that doesn't mean you have to run 64 bit
    code on it.

    Mine're mostly reasonably conservative users, with hundreds of machines
    to support. Using 64 bit capable hardware, such as Opterons, is one
    thing,
    but using an entirely different linux installation and userspace
    code, say, is
    a much bigger change in support terms. In the extreme case it makes no
    sense to double your OS support overheads to get a single digit
    percentage
    performance improvement on one database system.

    That's not to say that linux/x86-64 isn't production ready for some
    users, just
    that it's not necessarily a good operational decision for my
    customers. Given
    my internal workloads aren't really stressing the hardware they're on
    I don't
    have much incentive to benchmark x86-64 yet - by the time the numbers
    might be useful to me we'll be on a different postgresql, likely a
    different
    gcc/icc and so on.

    Cheers,
       Steve


    ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
    TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster





[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux