Re:
От | David Griffiths |
---|---|
Тема | Re: |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 003101c1b99c$4c19cac0$860ca8c0@griffiths обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | ("Steve Wolfe" <steve@iboats.com>) |
Ответы |
Re:
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Couple of questions about your last comment: - the benchmark against the dual-P3's was as a web server? - what was the config of the dual P3 machine? - could the slow-down be attributed to something other than CPU performance? IE lots of disk reads, with the P3 system having a better disk-system? Or perhaps they have equivilent hard-drive configurations, but they are disk-bound and thus the Athalon doesn't get to shine? Perhaps the Athalon system is not fully maxed? I've heard that there is a kernal bug with the Athalon (Microsoft has a registry patch for it). Maybe only with nVidia graphics cards? Couldn't find a reference. LinuxHardware.org did a nice review of a Dual Athalon +1800 (compared to various systems). Shows that (surprise surprise) dual processors are only useful if you have software that can take advantage of multiple processors. The url: http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?sid=01/10/15/1443234&mode=thread David > As an interesting side note, after the tests, I used the parts for > their intended purpose - to upgrade one of our web servers. Afterward, I > compared it to the performance of a couple of dual P3/866 web servers. In > this setting, the dual Athlons did not fare as well as I thought they > would. They handled about 35% more traffic than the P3's, but I had > expected much more. I think it's interesting how the system shined so > well in one setting, but not nearly as well in another.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: