Re: [GENERAL] Performance

On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, The Hermit Hacker wrote:

# Using the rc5 client as a 'benchmark' (what else has programmers working
# hard to optimize their code to get the best numbers on it?), we found
# that when comparing a Dual-PII 450 against an Sparc E450/400Mhz, the
# E450 came in at ~30% less powerful then the Dual-PII ...

    That's a *horrible* benchmark.  How often do your servers sit
around doing math inside of cache?  This isn't raytracing.

# If you take a look at
# http://infopad.EECS.Berkeley.EDU/CIC/summary/local, it shows comparisons
# of the various CPUs out there, up until Nov/98 ...  the Intel CPUs blow
# away the Sparc chip's in integer arithmetic, while the Sparc excels in
# floating point.  Your operating system, and the database, tends to do
# most stuff in integer, so you get performance boons that way...

    This is absolutely incorrect.  My database tends to do most stuff
in I/O.  In the real world, I've not seen sign of a machine that could
keep up with my SPARCs 24/7.

# The other thing to consider is that you are comparing two differences,
# not just one.  Different CPUs and different operating systems.  Solaris
# isn't nicknamed 'slowaris' for nothing :)  Its a bloated OS, albeit
# stable...

    It's nicknamed ``Slowaris'' for the same reason FreeBSD is
nicknamed, ``FleaBeastie'' and Linux is nicknamed ``Linsux'' and HP-UX is
nicknamed ``HP-SUX'' etc...

# On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, Jason wrote:
#
# > Looking for a little reasoning behind our performance difference on 2
# > different platforms.  We have been running postgres on our sparcs, and
# > have come to rely on the dB quite heavily.  We have dedicated a box to
# > doing nothing but our postgres work.  Here is what we have:
# >
# > Dual Sparc 167
# > 512 MB RAM
# > Solaris 2.5.1
# >
# > Performance seemed reasonable to us, until we ran the same database and
# > queries on the following machine:
# >
# > Intel Celeron 333
# > 128 MB RAM
# > Red Hat Linux 5.2
# >
# > We have a passwd style database with 65,000 rows.  We updated 20,000 of
# > them with a SQL update command, setting a single integer field to a
# > value.  Both boxes where indexed the same, and had identical data.  The
# > Sparc took near 10 minutes to complete, while the Intel took ~30
# > seconds.  This is just one case, but many very similar tests had the
# > same results.
# >
# > Now I love Linux, and the price compared to a Sparc makes it much
# > simpler to get one on line.  However, I can't understand why the Sparc
# > would lag so far behind.  We are starting Postgres the same on both
# > machines:
# >
# > su - postgres -c "/usr/local/pgsql/bin/postmaster -B 256 -o -F -i -S"
# >
# > We are looking at getting a dual 400 Intel Pentium II box with Red Hat
# > to migrate all of the Postgres work to.  But in the meantime, is there a
# > way to optimize the performance on the Sparc?  Thanks in advance.
# >
# > -Jason Neumeier.
# >
# >
# >
#
# Marc G. Fournier                   ICQ#7615664               IRC Nick: Scrappy
# Systems Administrator @ hub.org
# primary: scrappy@hub.org           secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
#
#
#

--
SA, beyond.com           My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub  1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <dustin@spy.net>
|    Key fingerprint =  87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6  C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________