When i question about WAL, i mean if WAL is in other drive. You must run a benchmark more expensive to cpu for make a conclusion. Make a query that have more of 8 seconds, then you can see really if exists a diference in other way... i think you don't use the same image of the old server in the new. In that way could be a configuration kernel. do you make a test of hardware instead postgres?? if the hard give you better numbers, so postgres have the problem. 2008/10/10 Shane Ambler <pgsql@xxxxxxxxxx>: > Bart Grantham wrote: >> >> a long story short: we're experiencing Xeons as 50% slower than >> Opterons, even when the Xeon has twice as much cache and a slight >> clock speed advantage. > >> tests I finally took the final leap: just pull the disks and throw >> them in a newer Opteron chassis (2.8GHz, 1M cache). And whaddya >> know? It's got a 20% speed edge on the older Opteron, and blows away >> the performance of the newer Xeons. > > But is the difference in cpu or disk? > > Do the two machines get a similar disk transfer rate? > > Same raid card and disks in both machines, do they get the same MB/Sec? > (as opposed to on-board controllers) > > > > -- > > Shane Ambler > pgSQL (at) Sheeky (dot) Biz > > Get Sheeky @ http://Sheeky.Biz > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
