Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?)
От | Jeff Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.62.0504192315410.21883@discord.dyndns.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?) ("J. Andrew Rogers" <jrogers@neopolitan.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Opteron vs Xeon (Was: What to do with 6 disks?)
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote: > I don't know about 2.5x faster (perhaps on specific types of loads), but the > reason Opterons rock for database applications is their insanely good memory > bandwidth and latency that scales much better than the Xeon. Opterons also > have a ccNUMA-esque I/O fabric and two dedicated on-die memory channels *per > processor* -- no shared bus there, closer to real UNIX server iron than a > glorified PC. Thanks J! That's exactly what I was suspecting it might be. Actually, I found an anandtech benchmark that shows the Opteron coming in at close to 2.0x performance: http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=2 It's an Opteron 150 (2.4ghz) vs. Xeon 3.6ghz from August. I wonder if the differences are more pronounced with the newer Opterons. -Jeff
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: