Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance

>> Anyway, how does MacOS X (both 10.4 and 10.5) compare to Windows
>> (2000, XP, Vista etc.) on the same hardware? And Linux to
>> (Free-/Net-/whatever) BSD?
>
> Apple hardware gets so expensive for some types of database
> configurations that such a comparision doesn't even make a lot of
> sense.

So far my experience with the effective price/performance ratio of
Apple vs. other Hardware for my applications has been pretty good. E.g.
it was impossible for me to find a similarly priced
(Linux-/*BSD/Intel/AMD-)equivalent to my PowerMac G5 over here at the
time when I bought it.

Not to mention the required learning effort for Linux/*BSD compared to
MacOS X, if I count it in (days x day rate)...

> For example, if you have an application that needs high
> database write throughput, to make that work well with PostgreSQL you
> must have a controller with a battery backed cache.

Hmm, what would be the difference compared to plenty of RAM and a UPS
(plus stand-by backup server)? Looks just like moving the "single point
of failure" to adifferent hardware item, no...?

> If I have a PC,
> the entry-level solution in that category can be a random sub-$1000
> system that runs Linux

Can't find one over here for that price that does all the other things
that need to be done in a typicle small office (fileserver,
printserver, mailserver, calendar server,...) similarly well as my old
G5 PowerMac. To turn this one into a part-time DB server, I'd just plug
in an eSATA or SAS array (with PCIe adapter) and maybe another few GB
of RAM (currently 4). Plus a backup tape drive.

My world are environments with not more than at most 10 concurrent
database clients at any given moment. But those won't want to wait,
because they need to get actual work done.

> plus around $400 for a RAID card with BBC, and
> you've got multiple vendors to consider there (3Ware, Areca, LSI
> Logic, etc.)

LSI drivers are not available for MacOS X on PowerMacs? Ouch.

> Also, in previous generations, the Mach kernel core of Mac OS had
> some serious performance issues for database use even in read-heavy
> workloads: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2520&p=5

"With the MySQL performance woes now clearly caused by OS X"

Erm, systematic error here: It could also be that the MySQL
implementation/configuration for the two different OSes was the source
for the performance difference.

I wouldn't use MySQL anyway, and I'm mostly interested in transaction
performance (client waiting time until commit).

>> I'm just wondering whether the performance gain is worth the
>> learning effort required for Linux or BSD compared to the Mac.
>
> On both Windows (where you get limitations like not being able to set
> a large value for shared_buffers)

My consistent experience with Windows over the last >15 years has been
that it just won't multitask anymore as soon as one process does
significant I/O. No matter what hardware you put underneath.

> and Mac OS X, PostgreSQL has enough
> performance issues that I feel using those plaforms can only be
> justified if platform compatibility is more important than
> performance to you.

The point is that cost for "installation", "configuration" and
"administration" must be taken into account. A dedicated individual
just for that is simply out of question in this world where I live. So
someone who's already available has to do all that in a (as tiny as
possible) fraction of his/her worktime. With MacOS X it's feasible, but
Linux/*BSD? I'm not so sure.

Sincerely,

Wolfgang Keller