From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Nasby <jimn(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Raul Retamozo <revelar(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: best OS and HW for postgreSQL |
Date: | 2006-09-25 15:28:20 |
Message-ID: | 4517F594.7000404@commandprompt.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 20:18 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Raul Retamozo wrote:
>>> Hi everyone on the list. I want to know what is the reccommended OS
>>> to work with PostgreSQL , on specific with PostGIS:
>>> One more question is about what HW (server) offers the best
>>> performance for a Web Map Server bases on PostGIS and mapserver.
>> In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS you're most
>> comfortable with.
>
> I'd amend that to say whatever flavor of unix you're most comfortable
> with.
Well honestly that isn't true either. Linux is faster then Solaris for
PostgreSQL in a lot of cases. In reality... I would say the best OS for
PostgreSQL is either Linux or FreeBSD. Win32 is great for a small
installation or development.
The Solaris argument may change for 8.2, I don't know.
> Many tools aren't quite there on the windows version, and it
> still seems to have more issues with performance and scaling than the
> unix flavors of PostgreSQL.
No question. The win32 version of PostgreSQL can't go over 300-400
connections depending on the size of your machine without modifying your
registry in a scary fashion.
>
>> As for hardware, until recently, AMD was the un-disputed king when it
>> came to running PostgreSQL (and databases in general). But the newer
>> Intel CPUs seem to have surpassed the Opteron. I believe there's a
>> tweakers.net article floating around that did some performance
>> testing with the new CPUs.
I am still curious about this when you start talking more then say 4
CPUs. AMD IIRC still has the belt for things like memory bandwidth.
>
> I think AMD still has an advantage for CPU >=4 due to the hypertransport
> (not cores, actual CPU sockets >=4) Since most loads are easily handled
> by two dual core CPUs nowadays, AMD and Intel are about even.
Heh, see above ;)
>
> Much more important is your disk subsystem. Using an Areca RAID
> controller with battery backed cache and a half dozen or more hard
> drives is often the real winner for performance.
Yes, LSI and 3Ware are also good. I am particularly fond of LSI but
Areca has PCI-Express cards which means you can put them on cheaper
motherboards :)
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Srinivas Lakshmi Sistla | 2006-09-25 15:41:58 | postgrses database problem |
Previous Message | Hakan Kocaman | 2006-09-25 15:18:19 | Re: best OS and HW for postgreSQL |