Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DD469F928C for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:15:48 -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 27323-05 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:15:43 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com (nz-out-0506.google.com [64.233.162.232]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4B109F9287 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:15:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: by nz-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id l8so1151474nzf for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:15:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=EaRd3jup0HxqHr8Uzhax4woYr1qlr+E3f3kdUqLH4l53rmdG8zFgrJGQH7RZt/C/4VVFIRKtZCh1CyBjtbf3IpNWPPJKHJuannsDnmPSdo9YLqVjgUaXqBF09/ZcWIQP3nuoI6AuBfcr/0L4K5Db+hUOXrj7njHShGupH9M/PdI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=gsbJiJFsEAUw9babobrytXHiZBfm6sOXOmWeFJ6K34n5Q6A8HTfD2jjDMWHVU/4+lDESLqh+mcnzu4U+ch/2UEzRR8J9eRs2yMv3sw9nE6w7zng7EDGop49IZXtVwYLoF81j+wQ40IA5WcCXX8dlV4jmJe8XYaLse2tqsyS3jm4= Received: by 10.141.52.5 with SMTP id e5mr2863352rvk.1189005342147; Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.141.159.11 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Sep 2007 08:15:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:15:42 -0500 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: "Carlo Stonebanks" Subject: Re: Performance on 8CPU's and 32GB of RAM Cc: "Alvaro Herrera" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <3DCCF196F82444998B33F40C97B71CA4@serenity> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070904230639.GA23731@alvh.no-ip.org> <3DCCF196F82444998B33F40C97B71CA4@serenity> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200709/49 X-Sequence-Number: 26594 On 9/5/07, Carlo Stonebanks wrote: > 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). Where unixes generally outperform windows is in starting up new backends, better file systems, and handling very large shared_buffer settings. > Was this incorrect? Can my client DEFINITELY expect a significant > improvement in performance for what he is doing? Depends on what you mean by incorrect. Windows can do ok. But pgsql is still much newer on windows than on unix / linux and there are still some issues that pop up here and there that are being worked on. Plus there's still no real definitive set of guidelines to tune on Windows just yet. > DISK subsystem reports: SCSI/RAID Smart Array E200 controller using RAID 1. So, just two disks? for the load you mentioned before, you should probably be looking at at least 4 maybe 6 or 8 disks in a RAID-10. And a battery backed cache. I've seen reports on this list of the E300 being a pretty mediocre performer. A better controller might be worth looking into as well.