Обсуждение: Hardware
I need to purchase a new server to put posgresql on that will be acting as the DBMS server for Apache ofBiz soon. While googling around for performance tweaks I saw this at http://revsys.com/writings/postgresql-performance.html <quote> CPUs — The more CPUs the better, however if your database does not use many complex functions your money is best spent on a better disk subsystem. Also, avoid Intel Xeon processors with PostgreSQL as there is a problem with the context switching in these processors that gives sub-par performance. Opterons are generally accepted as being a superior CPU for PostgreSQL databases. </quote> Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server with Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz. And at http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList <quote> focus on RAID 1 or 1+0 or 0+1 for any set of 2, 4 or 6 disks. </quote> Are RAID 1 or 1+0 or 0+1 equal in speed, performance, downtime in regards to postgresql. Is it a coin toss?
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 10:59:21AM -0500, Walter Vaughan wrote:
>
> Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server with
> Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz.
Multi-core Xeons are not as affected, and are somewhat different
"under the hood". So no, you're probably ok there.
> Are RAID 1 or 1+0 or 0+1 equal in speed, performance, downtime in regards
> to postgresql. Is it a coin toss?
Well, 1 isn't equivalent to 1+0 or 0+1 in terms of capacity, because
it's a straight mirror of two drives. I hate 0+1, because you lose
half the array in the event any disk in the side fails. So I always
use 1+0 if I can.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The plural of anecdote is not data.
--Roger Brinner
On 06.02.2007, at 08:59, Walter Vaughan wrote: > Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server > with Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz. No, it's not true anymore. See http://tweakers.net/reviews/657/1 for an interesting comparison. cug
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 6 Feb 2007, at 15:59, Walter Vaughan wrote: > I need to purchase a new server to put posgresql on that will be > acting as the DBMS server for Apache ofBiz soon. While googling > around for performance tweaks I saw this at http://revsys.com/ > writings/postgresql-performance.html > > <quote> > CPUs — The more CPUs the better, however if your database does not > use many complex functions your money is best spent on a better > disk subsystem. Also, avoid Intel Xeon processors with PostgreSQL > as there is a problem with the context switching in these > processors that gives sub-par performance. Opterons are generally > accepted as being a superior CPU for PostgreSQL databases. > </quote> > > Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server > with Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz. > > And at http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList > It seems to be outdated. As far as I know it was supposed to warn for the HyperThreading things. - -- Viele Grüße, Lars Heidieker lars@heidieker.de http://paradoxon.info - ------------------------------------ Mystische Erklärungen. Die mystischen Erklärungen gelten für tief; die Wahrheit ist, dass sie noch nicht einmal oberflächlich sind. -- Friedrich Nietzsche -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (Darwin) iD8DBQFFyK36cxuYqjT7GRYRAmHfAJ0Z9q/a2m4gFreX7pKEOypMn7sikwCdG7sY V6AznEEqG6cj5Hk32Oya6PI= =yg4Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 10:33, Lars Heidieker wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 6 Feb 2007, at 15:59, Walter Vaughan wrote: > > > I need to purchase a new server to put posgresql on that will be > > acting as the DBMS server for Apache ofBiz soon. While googling > > around for performance tweaks I saw this at http://revsys.com/ > > writings/postgresql-performance.html > > > > <quote> > > CPUs — The more CPUs the better, however if your database does not > > use many complex functions your money is best spent on a better > > disk subsystem. Also, avoid Intel Xeon processors with PostgreSQL > > as there is a problem with the context switching in these > > processors that gives sub-par performance. Opterons are generally > > accepted as being a superior CPU for PostgreSQL databases. > > </quote> > > > > Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server > > with Quad Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz. > > > > And at http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList > > > > It seems to be outdated. As far as I know it was supposed to warn for > the HyperThreading things. It wasn't just hyperthreading. The older xeons tended to have more CPU horsepower than cache bandwidth, and this resulted in them going into swap storms whether hyperthreading was on or not. It was just easier to trigger with hyperthreading.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2007, Walter Vaughan wrote: > <quote> > CPUs ? The more CPUs the better, however if your database does not use many > complex functions your money is best spent on a better disk subsystem. Also, > avoid Intel Xeon processors with PostgreSQL as there is a problem with the > context switching in these processors that gives sub-par performance. > Opterons are generally accepted as being a superior CPU for PostgreSQL > databases. > </quote> > > Is this still true in regards to Xeon's? I was looking at a server with Quad > Core Xeon 2 5335 @ 2.0GHz. My understanding is that this is no longer true with the newer xeons, but then, I haven't tested them myself, so I can't say.