On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> On Friday 22 August 2003 18:45, Claudio Lapidus wrote:
> > Shridhar Daithankar wrote:
> > > point of view. If you are running it on low end sun machine, sparc
> > > linux+postgresql might prove a better combination.
> >
> > Why do you say performance is no good? I haven't had the occasion to
> > compare on similar hardware. Did you?
> >
> > Besides that, I don't usually select Sun/Solaris for raw performance alone,
> > in most server applications, stability and availability are much more
> > important and this is where Solaris shines. And if I need something
> > *really* fast, I always would try to go with Alpha.
>
> I specifically said low end machine. I have not seen a sparc machine running a
> SCSI disk. i.e my experience with solaris is limited. But I have seen two
> machines in a migration project here from solaris+oracle to AIX+DB2. I know
> there are too many variables here but AIX+DB2 combo vastly outperforms
> solaris+oracle AFAIK. In particular a report took half the time on AIX than
> that of oracle for almost same combo, the developer tells me..
My experiment involved a Sparc 20 (50 MHz CPU, 32 bit) with 256
Megs of RAM running RH 6.2 and Postgresql 7.1 versus an Ultra Sparc 1
(150 MHz CPU, 64 bit) with 512 Meg of RAM with Solaris and also running
postgresql 7.1.
Postgresql was setup identically on the two machines, and neither was
optimized to handle hundreds of connections or anything.
No matter what benchmark we threw at it, bulk loading, pgbench, and
several other tests, the Sparc 20 was 10 to 50% faster than the Ultra 1.
Both machines were using narrow SCSI controllers and disks.
This was a couple of years ago, so I can't speak for how things are today
really.
