From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov  7 13:49:33 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13D3AEC2
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 13:49:33 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [89.206.35.99])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BADF8FC0A
 for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed,  7 Nov 2012 13:49:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA7EnTXv005966;
 Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:49:29 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
 by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) with ESMTP id qA7EnTLg005963;
 Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:49:29 +0100 (CET)
 (envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 15:49:29 +0100 (CET)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Yuri <yuri@rawbw.com>
Subject: Re: pgbench performance is lagging compared to Linux and DragonflyBSD?
In-Reply-To: <50997AB8.40607@rawbw.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1211071549090.5942@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
References: <50980ADD.4010402@rawbw.com>
 <CAGH67wScvnE7gYzVVtfehYbVfM465vrLjP9bX4KXSp8Sq-25mA@mail.gmail.com>
 <50994FE0.2070205@rawbw.com>
 <CANY-Wm9nTPy5A3Eygb4BQmz60a8ose--3veoQHwFj3p66BFB8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <50997AB8.40607@rawbw.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
 (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl [127.0.0.1]); Wed, 07 Nov 2012 15:49:30 +0100 (CET)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, "Samuel J. Greear" <sjg@evilcode.net>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
 <freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-hackers>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
 <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:49:33 -0000



On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Yuri wrote:

> On 11/06/2012 11:10, Samuel J. Greear wrote:
>> Single and multi-socket hardware are not really directly comparable in
>> PostgreSQL tests.
>
> So if the CPUs are split between sockets, would such system generally perform 
> better or worse with PostgeSQL vs. non-split situation?
>

multiple sockets means more interconnect delay=lower performance.