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...
Unfortunately I don't have access to any of these versions to test
with at the moment.
