From: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Linux v.s. Mac OS-X Performance |
Date: | 2007-11-28 01:10:55 |
Message-ID: | 474CC01F.7090608@cox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/27/07 18:01, Scott Ribe wrote:
>> In general, you can expect any Unix based OS, which includes MacOS X, to
>> perform noticeably better than Windows for PostgreSQL.
>
> Is that really true of BSD UNIXen??? I've certainly heard it's true of
> Linux. But with BSD you have the "kernel funnel" which can severely limit
> multitasking, regardless of whether threads or processes were used. Apple
> has been working toward finer-grained locking precisely because that was a
> serious bottleneck which limited OS X server performance.
>
> Or have I misunderstood and this was only the design of one particular
> flavor of BSD, not BSDen in general?
IIRC, FreeBSD got rid of the Giant Lock back in v5.x.
There was a benchmark in Feb 2007 which demonstrated that FBSD 7.0
scaled *better* than Linux 2.6 after 4 CPUs.
http://jeffr-tech.livejournal.com/5705.html
Turns out that there was/is a bug in glibc's malloc(). Don't know
if it's been fixed yet.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
%SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTMAfS9HxQb37XmcRAg4NAJsFXVFa5NQtctsdrjbNCZ8GRAHMlwCeOfZr
kBFOQUI6zGcTDiy793+JSIc=
=/W4e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-11-28 01:32:27 | Re: Another question about partitioning |
Previous Message | Alex Vinogradovs | 2007-11-28 00:51:56 | Another question about partitioning |