Re: [GENERAL] Performance
От | Rudy Gireyev |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [GENERAL] Performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 199903301918.OAA85362@hub.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [GENERAL] Performance (Statistical Solutions <statsol@statsol.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
[snip] > > The third is the SPARC chip's cache versus the Intel chip's cache. I know > SUN and Ross were making chips with as little as 128 cache, and the SPEC > marks for the 128 v. 256 v 512 v 1024 cache are phenomenal. So just out > of curiousity, what's the cache size on the SPARC and Intel chips > respectively? 1) All Celerons ship with a 128K on chip cache. Which means the cache runs at the same clock rate as the chip. 2) The PIIs ship with 512K cache, however it's level 2 so it only runs at bus speed. 3) The Xeon has different sizes of on chip cache that runs at the clock speed. The Xeon is _the_ processor to be used in a highly loaded server based on the Intel architecture. > > > 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 > > > > > > > > >
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: