Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:24:38 +0200 From: Palle Girgensohn <girgen@pingpong.net> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: AMD or Intel? Message-ID: <1F219879A7E5C565C96109FF@c-2f56e155.1521-1-64736c12.cust.bredbandsbolaget.se> In-Reply-To: <cone.1189710437.247473.77599.5001@35st.simplicato.com> References: <E6C9DBADAE3839B380B736D7@rambutan.pingpong.net> <cone.1189710437.247473.77599.5001@35st.simplicato.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--On torsdag, torsdag 13 sep 2007 15.07.17 -0400 Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> wrote: > Palle Girgensohn writes: > >> Now, I hear rumors that AMD is to be preferred over Intel for >> performance > > From what I have read in the past, specially in the postgresql list, it > seems the AMD64 cpus do better with Postgresql. Possibly because of > better bus architecture. I think this is not current information; the new woodcrest architecture performs mucg better, although this is deduced from this thread's discussion... > Personally I think having lots of memory and a good disk subsystem is > going to make a bigger difference. true > What sizes are you expecting for your data? > What type of growth? How many concurrent connections? Presently ~pgsql/data has a 16 GB footprint. The growth is rather slow, around a percent per week, sometimes much more due to batch updates. Even with a high system load, we seldom see more than a 30-40 concurrent postgresql connections. /Palle
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1F219879A7E5C565C96109FF>