Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F9969FA26D for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:05:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25084-04 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:05:39 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.188]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111BD9F9D7A for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:05:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from serenity ([70.52.67.95]) by tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.13 201-253-122-130-113-20050324) with ESMTP id <20070905150537.BEVH19497.tomts25-srv.bellnexxia.net@serenity>; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:05:37 -0400 From: "Carlo Stonebanks" To: "'Scott Marlowe'" , "'Alvaro Herrera'" Cc: References: <20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:06:03 -0400 Message-ID: <3DCCF196F82444998B33F40C97B71CA4@serenity> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6000.16480 Thread-Index: AcfvSXizHhVzQSUmQ6yJ6MbwmmN3uwAAFwqA X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.001 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=BAYES_50=0.001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200709/48 X-Sequence-Number: 26593 Unfortunately, LINUX is not an option at this time. We looked into it; there 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 did outperform Windows, that it would outperform so significantly that it merited the move). Was this incorrect? Can my client DEFINITELY expect a significant improvement in performance for what he is doing? DISK subsystem reports: SCSI/RAID Smart Array E200 controller using RAID 1. -----Original Message----- From: Scott Marlowe [mailto:scott.marlowe@gmail.com] Sent: September 4, 2007 7:15 PM To: Alvaro Herrera Cc: Carlo Stonebanks; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM On 9/4/07, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Carlo Stonebanks wrote: > > A client is moving their postgresql db to a brand new Windows 2003 x64 > > server with 2 quad cores and 32GB of RAM. It is a dedicated server to run > > 8.2.4. > > Large shared_buffers and Windows do not mix. Perhaps you should leave > the shmem config low, so that the kernel can cache the file pages. Egads, I'd completely missed the word Windows up there. I would highly recommend building the postgresql server on a unixish OS. Even with minimum tuning, I'd expect the same box running linux or freebsd to stomp windows pretty heavily in the performance department. But yeah, the I/O, that's the big one. If it's just a single or a couple of IDE drives, it's not gonna be able to handle much load.