I'm running PostgreSQL on a Sun Ultra 60 running Solaris 8. It's maybe not
a fair comparison, as before I was running everything
(JBoss/TomCat/Apache/PostgreSQL) on a 550MHz Pentium with 384M of RAM, and a
single 7200 RPM IDE drive, but I got a real big boost in performance when I
moved PosgreSQL onto the Solaris box. It seems like a pretty good platform
for PosgreSQL, and I would think the 10K drives would speed things up a bit.
But I'm no expert.
Kelly McTiernan
"Scott Marlowe" <smarlowe@ihs.com> wrote in message
news:a03059a3.0202130819.465f316a@posting.google.com...
> justin@postgresql.org (Justin Clift) wrote in message
news:<3C6621C1.85C8479D@postgresql.org>...
> > Just had a thought,
> >
> > It would be interesting to know how PostgreSQL performs on Linux on
> > SPARC, compared to how it performs on Solaris on SPARC.
> >
> > Assuming PostgreSQL runs on Linux on SPARC (can't remember).
> >
> > Has anyone ever done decent testing of this?
>
> A buddy of mine at work and I did. I put my Sparc20 with 512 Meg RAM
> against his Ultra 1 with 256 megs of RAM. I was running a single 2
> Gig Barracuda drive with narrow SCSI and he was running a 5 to 10 Gig
> ide drive. My Sparc 20 was running RedHat 6.2 and his was running the
> latest and greatest version of Solaris at the time last fall. Both
> machines had compiled postgresql 7.1.2 or 7.1.3, whichever was out
> then with gcc.
>
> My Sparc 20 was a match for the Ultra 1 for every query we threw at
> them. Sometimes a little slower, mostly a little faster.
>
> I'd like to get the time to put Linux and Solaris dual boot on an
> Ultra 60 or something and get some real numbers, but our little test
> convinced me that Linux is a much better platform for Postgresql than
> Solaris.
>
> I've heard similar stories re: BSD performance being much worse than
> Linux for postgresql but haven't had any chance to do any testing.
>
> My thanks to all the postgresql developers, we love you man! :-)
>
> Scott Marlowe
