Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.191]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50A7D9F9756 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:32:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.191]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 63985-06 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:32:48 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from noel.decibel.org (noel.decibel.org [67.100.216.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078E09F9A71 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:32:47 -0300 (ADT) Received: by noel.decibel.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6DC11564C2; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: (hashcash-sendmail, from uid 1001); Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:32:42 -0500 Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:32:42 -0500 From: Decibel! To: Carlo Stonebanks Cc: 'Scott Marlowe' , 'Alvaro Herrera' , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM Message-ID: <20070911203242.GY38801@decibel.org> References: <20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org> <3DCCF196F82444998B33F40C97B71CA4@serenity> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MMGYF6kLVCwQWRVm" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3DCCF196F82444998B33F40C97B71CA4@serenity> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 6.1-RELEASE-p10 amd64 X-Distributed: Join the Effort! http://www.distributed.net User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-Hashcash: 1:20:070911:stonec.register@sympatico.ca::jmWL7Ayzeo1M4jWk:000000000 0000000000000000000000004noT X-Hashcash: 1:20:070911:scott.marlowe@gmail.com::x9kt0b/FP4g6UdML:00000000000000 0000000000000000000000003CTP X-Hashcash: 1:20:070911:alvherre@commandprompt.com::bP4WwsKMfz8d7QPH:00000000000 0000000000000000000000000DhI X-Hashcash: 1:20:070911:pgsql-performance@postgresql.org::9L/pZ0zhe0PyN2C8:00000 0000000000000000000000006iu5 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/195 X-Sequence-Number: 26740 --MMGYF6kLVCwQWRVm Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:06:03AM -0400, Carlo Stonebanks wrote: > Unfortunately, LINUX is not an option at this time. We looked into it; th= ere > is no *NIX expertise in the enterprise. However, I have raised this issue= in > various forums before, and when pressed no one was willing to say that "*= NIX > *DEFINITELY* outperforms Windows" for what my client is doing (or if it d= id > outperform Windows, that it would outperform so significantly that it > merited the move). >=20 > Was this incorrect? Can my client DEFINITELY expect a significant > improvement in performance for what he is doing? Since we don't know your actual workload, there's no way to predict this. That's what benchmarking is for. If you haven't already bought the hardware, I'd strongly recommend benchmarking this before buying anything, so that you have a better idea of what your workload looks like. Is it I/O-bound? CPU-bound? Memory? One of the fastest ways to non-performance in PostgreSQL is not vacuuming frequently enough. Vacuum more, not less, and control IO impact via vacuum_cost_delay. Make sure the FSM is big enough, too. Unless your database is small enough to fit in-memory, your IO subsystem is almost certainly going to kill you. Even if it does fit in memory, if you're doing much writing at all you're going to be in big trouble. --=20 Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) --MMGYF6kLVCwQWRVm Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFG5vtqdO30qud8SkgRAkNLAJ9Ct/oHftNOKvTbSJsyYzXABEhFKACfZvJ/ HZxf/IRFxCsq6ez7cnm/JUw= =mAQ4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MMGYF6kLVCwQWRVm--