From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 25 12:56:36 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5FF116A401 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:56:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from derek@computinginnovations.com) Received: from betty.computinginnovations.com (dsl081-142-072.chi1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.142.72]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D1F743D58 for ; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:56:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from derek@computinginnovations.com) Received: from p17.computinginnovations.com (dhcp-10-20-30-100.computinginnovations.com [10.20.30.100]) (authenticated bits=0) by betty.computinginnovations.com (8.13.5/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3PCuBIY002996; Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:56:11 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.2.20060425075227.028aea10@mail.computinginnovations.com> X-Sender: derek@mail.computinginnovations.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.0.22 Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 07:56:03 -0500 To: Bill Moran From: Derek Ragona In-Reply-To: <20060425084752.2453c0f1.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> References: <20060424154617.9dc28c94.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <6.0.0.22.2.20060424175443.02927f48@mail.computinginnovations.com> <20060425084752.2453c0f1.wmoran@collaborativefusion.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-ComputingInnovations-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ComputingInnovations-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ComputingInnovations-MailScanner-From: derek@computinginnovations.com X-Spam-Status: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Purchasing the correct hardware: dual-core intel? Big cache? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 12:56:37 -0000 Yes, dual core is on average 20% faster than hyperthreaded CPU's. But that is general benchmark. The range of performance difference is 10% - 30% depending on the application mix. If you use well optimized applications, you see the larger performance gain. Poor optimization causes a CPU to chug along, flushing the CPU cache often, and slowing things down considerably. -Derek At 07:47 AM 4/25/2006, Bill Moran wrote: >On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 18:31:46 -0500 >Derek Ragona wrote: > > > You can get better information directly from intel's website on > > motherboards and CPU performance. Dual core is faster than hyperthreaded > > CPU's usually about 20% if you use the larger CPU cache models. > >I don't follow you here. Are you saying that dual core is about >20% faster than hyperthreaded with larger cache? > > > However with a RDBMS as the primary usage, I would look for more ways to > > optimize the system. I would look to use a RAID array with an add-on card > > (or zero-chanel add-on) as this will provide better performance (with a > > raid 0) or better performance with redundancy (raid 10, or RAID 0+1.) A > > RAID adapter will offload the DISK I/O providing substantially better > > performance. > >We are using Dell PERC controllers with SCSI 320 disks in a RAID-10 >configuration, and battery-backed cache. As a result, disk IO is _not_ >a bottleneck. All of our tests up till now have demonstrated that >memory and disk usage are minimal, and that CPU usage is the current >bottleneck. > > > At 02:46 PM 4/24/2006, you wrote: > > > > >I've been asked to make some hardware recommendations, I'm hoping some > > >folks on the list can make some suggestions. > > > > > >We're looking hard at getting either Intel dual-core procs, or getting > > >hyperthreaded procs with huge (8M) caches. > > > > > >We currently have a few dual proc Intel HT machines that we can test > > >out our workload on, and I'm trying to get a feel for how to determine > > >if a larger cache size will generate better performance than replacing > > >HT procs with full-blown dual-core procs. We're looking at the 6850 > > >from Dell, which supports both processor families: > > >http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/productdetails.aspx/pedge_6850 > ?c=us&cs=555&l=en&s=biz > > > > > >The goal for these machines is to serve out PosgreSQL databases to as > > >many Apache+php front ends as we can hang off each one. So we're trying > > >to purchase hardware that will create a DB server that can handle a lot > > >of web server front ends. > > > > > >I have a Dell 2850 (dual HT procs) here that I can use for testing. > > >I'm a little fuzzy on determining how well the cache is working, so I'm > > >stuck on whether or not the 8M cache that's available on the HT units > > >is worth the money or not. Can anyone suggest a testing methodology > > >that will isolate this particular aspect? > > > > > >-- > > >Bill Moran > > >Collaborative Fusion Inc. > > >_______________________________________________ > > >freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > > >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > > >To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > >-- > > >This message has been scanned for viruses and > > >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > >believed to be clean. > > >MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. > > > > -- > > This message has been scanned for viruses and > > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > > believed to be clean. > > MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. > > > > > > >-- >Bill Moran >Collaborative Fusion Inc. > >**************************************************************** >IMPORTANT: This message contains confidential information and is >intended only for the individual named. If the reader of this >message is not an intended recipient (or the individual >responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended >recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination, >distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. Please >notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received >this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. >E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or >error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, >destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The >sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or >omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a >result of e-mail transmission. >**************************************************************** > >-- >This message has been scanned for viruses and >dangerous content by MailScanner, and is >believed to be clean. >MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support.