Trevor Talbot wrote:
> On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
>>> On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote:
>>>>> As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or
>>>>> about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the
>>>>> kernel memory pools either.
>>>> As Dave said, it could be that the server version uses a lot less heap per
>>>> process, which would be another good reason to use server rather than XP to
>>>> run postgresql. But might there also be other differences, such as some
>>>> third party (or non-core microsoft) product installed?
>>> The XP SP2 machine I tried 8.2.5 on was chewing up about 3.1KB per
>>> process, and it's not running anything invasive (AV or otherwise).
>> Then I think we can claim that Server is just better than Workstation in
>> this regard. Maybe we should put that in the FAQ?
>
> I think it's safe to claim 2003 is better than XP, but I'm not sure
> that's enough to generalize into server vs workstation yet. It
> implies 2000 Server would be better than 2000 Pro, which might not be
> true. I'm also wondering whether 64bit XP behaves differently, since
> IIRC it's based on the 2003 kernel. Then there's Vista...
Valid points, of course. Specifically, it'd be interesting to know where
Vista stands, and possibly 2008 server. I don't care that much about
2000, really.
I don't have installations of either one, though.. :-(
//Magnus
