Thread: best OS and HW for postgreSQL
Hi everyone on the list. I want to know what is the reccommended OS to work with PostgreSQL , on specific with PostGIS:
One more question is about what HW (server) offers the best performance for a Web Map Server bases on PostGIS and mapserver.
Thanks in advance.
Consigue el nuevo Windows Live Messenger Pruébalo
On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Raul Retamozo wrote: > Hi everyone on the list. I want to know what is the reccommended OS > to work with PostgreSQL , on specific with PostGIS: > One more question is about what HW (server) offers the best > performance for a Web Map Server bases on PostGIS and mapserver. In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS you're most comfortable with. As for hardware, until recently, AMD was the un-disputed king when it came to running PostgreSQL (and databases in general). But the newer Intel CPUs seem to have surpassed the Opteron. I believe there's a tweakers.net article floating around that did some performance testing with the new CPUs. -- Jim Nasby jimn@enterprisedb.com EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Hi. On 9/25/06, Jim Nasby <jimn@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > As for hardware, until recently, AMD was the un-disputed king when it > came to running PostgreSQL (and databases in general). But the newer > Intel CPUs seem to have surpassed the Opteron. I believe there's a > tweakers.net article floating around that did some performance > testing with the new CPUs. http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/13 cug -- PostgreSQL Bootcamp, Big Nerd Ranch Europe, Nov 2006 http://www.bignerdranch.com/news/2006-08-21.shtml
On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 20:18 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote: > On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Raul Retamozo wrote: > > Hi everyone on the list. I want to know what is the reccommended OS > > to work with PostgreSQL , on specific with PostGIS: > > One more question is about what HW (server) offers the best > > performance for a Web Map Server bases on PostGIS and mapserver. > > In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS you're most > comfortable with. I'd amend that to say whatever flavor of unix you're most comfortable with. Many tools aren't quite there on the windows version, and it still seems to have more issues with performance and scaling than the unix flavors of PostgreSQL. > As for hardware, until recently, AMD was the un-disputed king when it > came to running PostgreSQL (and databases in general). But the newer > Intel CPUs seem to have surpassed the Opteron. I believe there's a > tweakers.net article floating around that did some performance > testing with the new CPUs. I think AMD still has an advantage for CPU >=4 due to the hypertransport (not cores, actual CPU sockets >=4) Since most loads are easily handled by two dual core CPUs nowadays, AMD and Intel are about even. Much more important is your disk subsystem. Using an Areca RAID controller with battery backed cache and a half dozen or more hard drives is often the real winner for performance.
I'm curious about the "[ADMIN] COPY FROM command v8.1.4" thread as it applies to this thread. The COPY thread pointed to kernel issues in x86_64 GNU/Linux SLES 9. I'm wondering if x86_64 is not a good move for pg servers at this time. Are there happy x86_64 production deployments? On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:44:32AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 20:18 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote: > > > > In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS you're most > > comfortable with.
hi, yep :~) compiled from source on Suse 9.2 (not SLES 9) best regards Hakan > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-admin-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ray Stell > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 5:03 PM > To: Scott Marlowe > Cc: Jim Nasby; Raul Retamozo; pgsql-admin@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [ADMIN] best OS and HW for postgreSQL > > > > I'm curious about the "[ADMIN] COPY FROM command v8.1.4" thread > as it applies to this thread. The COPY thread pointed to kernel > issues in x86_64 GNU/Linux SLES 9. I'm wondering if x86_64 is not > a good move for pg servers at this time. Are there happy x86_64 > production deployments? > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2006 at 09:44:32AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 20:18 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote: > > > > > > In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS > you're most > > > comfortable with. > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >
Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 20:18 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Raul Retamozo wrote:
>>> Hi everyone on the list. I want to know what is the reccommended OS
>>> to work with PostgreSQL , on specific with PostGIS:
>>> One more question is about what HW (server) offers the best
>>> performance for a Web Map Server bases on PostGIS and mapserver.
>> In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS you're most
>> comfortable with.
>
> I'd amend that to say whatever flavor of unix you're most comfortable
> with.
Well honestly that isn't true either. Linux is faster then Solaris for
PostgreSQL in a lot of cases. In reality... I would say the best OS for
PostgreSQL is either Linux or FreeBSD. Win32 is great for a small
installation or development.
The Solaris argument may change for 8.2, I don't know.
> Many tools aren't quite there on the windows version, and it
> still seems to have more issues with performance and scaling than the
> unix flavors of PostgreSQL.
No question. The win32 version of PostgreSQL can't go over 300-400
connections depending on the size of your machine without modifying your
registry in a scary fashion.
>
>> As for hardware, until recently, AMD was the un-disputed king when it
>> came to running PostgreSQL (and databases in general). But the newer
>> Intel CPUs seem to have surpassed the Opteron. I believe there's a
>> tweakers.net article floating around that did some performance
>> testing with the new CPUs.
I am still curious about this when you start talking more then say 4
CPUs. AMD IIRC still has the belt for things like memory bandwidth.
>
> I think AMD still has an advantage for CPU >=4 due to the hypertransport
> (not cores, actual CPU sockets >=4) Since most loads are easily handled
> by two dual core CPUs nowadays, AMD and Intel are about even.
Heh, see above ;)
>
> Much more important is your disk subsystem. Using an Areca RAID
> controller with battery backed cache and a half dozen or more hard
> drives is often the real winner for performance.
Yes, LSI and 3Ware are also good. I am particularly fond of LSI but
Areca has PCI-Express cards which means you can put them on cheaper
motherboards :)
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Mon, 2006-09-25 at 10:28, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Scott Marlowe wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 20:18 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote: > >> On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Raul Retamozo wrote: > >>> Hi everyone on the list. I want to know what is the reccommended OS > >>> to work with PostgreSQL , on specific with PostGIS: > >>> One more question is about what HW (server) offers the best > >>> performance for a Web Map Server bases on PostGIS and mapserver. > >> In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS you're most > >> comfortable with. > > > > I'd amend that to say whatever flavor of unix you're most comfortable > > with. > > Well honestly that isn't true either. Linux is faster then Solaris for > PostgreSQL in a lot of cases. In reality... I would say the best OS for > PostgreSQL is either Linux or FreeBSD. Win32 is great for a small > installation or development. > > The Solaris argument may change for 8.2, I don't know. Seems the same thing is true for other databases (the one that cannot be named comes to mind). > > > > Much more important is your disk subsystem. Using an Areca RAID > > controller with battery backed cache and a half dozen or more hard > > drives is often the real winner for performance. > > Yes, LSI and 3Ware are also good. I am particularly fond of LSI but > Areca has PCI-Express cards which means you can put them on cheaper > motherboards :) I too have a soft spot in my heart for LSI MegaRAID cards. They've never treated me badly.
>
>>> Much more important is your disk subsystem. Using an Areca RAID
>>> controller with battery backed cache and a half dozen or more hard
>>> drives is often the real winner for performance.
>> Yes, LSI and 3Ware are also good. I am particularly fond of LSI but
>> Areca has PCI-Express cards which means you can put them on cheaper
>> motherboards :)
>
> I too have a soft spot in my heart for LSI MegaRAID cards. They've
> never treated me badly.
Well the driver is rock solid on linux because it is MegaRaid. The card
for the most part hasn't changed in 10 years :)
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Ray Stell wrote:
> I'm curious about the "[ADMIN] COPY FROM command v8.1.4" thread
> as it applies to this thread. The COPY thread pointed to kernel
> issues in x86_64 GNU/Linux SLES 9. I'm wondering if x86_64 is not
> a good move for pg servers at this time. Are there happy x86_64
> production deployments?
Almost every deployment I do is on x86_64.
Joshua D. Drake
Command Prompt, Inc.
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
jd@commandprompt.com ("Joshua D. Drake") writes:
> Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> On Sun, 2006-09-24 at 20:18 -0400, Jim Nasby wrote:
>>> On Sep 22, 2006, at 6:12 PM, Raul Retamozo wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone on the list. I want to know what is the reccommended
>>>> OS to work with PostgreSQL , on specific with PostGIS:
>>>> One more question is about what HW (server) offers the best
>>>> performance for a Web Map Server bases on PostGIS and mapserver.
>>> In general, you're probably best off running whatever OS you're
>>> most comfortable with.
>> I'd amend that to say whatever flavor of unix you're most comfortable
>> with.
>
> Well honestly that isn't true either.
No, I think it's still true.
It seems to me that you're better off using an OS that you're
competent with than leaping out of the "region of competence."
Is it better to get a 15% speedup, but then have the system fall over
because you don't know how to keep it up to date with patches for
recent CERT reports? In many cases, I wouldn't think so...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxdatabases.info")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html
str->str_pok |= SP_FBM; /* deep magic */
s = (unsigned char*)(str->str_ptr); /* deeper magic */
-- Larry Wall in util.c from the perl source code
On Sep 25, 2006, at 6:43 AM, Guido Neitzer wrote: > Hi. > > On 9/25/06, Jim Nasby <jimn@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > >> As for hardware, until recently, AMD was the un-disputed king when it >> came to running PostgreSQL (and databases in general). But the newer >> Intel CPUs seem to have surpassed the Opteron. I believe there's a >> tweakers.net article floating around that did some performance >> testing with the new CPUs. > > http://tweakers.net/reviews/646/13 > > cug > Jim, I run the following : Hardware : Mix of Macs (G4's & G5's) OS : [OSX], & [OSX Server] Each machine runs : mySQL & pgSQL, Apache, PHP, Perl, OpenSSL, GD, etc... One machine runs : 4D Web Server (4th Dimension - Cross Platform Client Server RDBMS) If somebody absolutely wants Intel, the new Macs use Intel Processors, and run (OSX BSD Unix) and (Windows XP), the ease of working in the Terminal Shell (tcsh, bash, sh, csh, etc) is awesome. You can drag items from the desktop such as a folder(s), or file(s) and the paths are copied onto the terminal. You can also do simple things like type [% open /usr/local/src /etc ] <return> and window(s) containing the contents for those dirs will open at the GUI level. I don't know if linux provides such a close interaction between the GUI, and the shell environment. On OSX, I am always working in both environments at the same time. Also the greatest editor on the planet "BBEdit" runs on OSX, nothing even comes close. Most applications, including the operating system can be automated using AppleScript. The Mac allows the user/developer to record scripts at the application, or OS level, modify, save and run them easily via AppleScript. You can even call AppleScripts from unix shell scripts, and vice-versa. The whole OSX environment compares to Linux Variants that I have seen, much the same as an iPod compares to other mp3 players. For example you can type [% sudo chmod -R theUser:theGroup [drag folder(s), or file(s) from the desktop onto the terminal]<return> instead of typing the paths, and that's it... About a year ago I joined a Linux user's group and got to see demos on different variants. Nothing even came close to the integration provided by Apple's OSX. After attending the Linux user group for several months I realized how fortunate I was. In my opinion the complete integration provided by OSX was light years ahead of anything else I ever saw at the meetings. The guys that ran the group worked full time with Linux Systems, so they were well experienced. I remember one evening at the user group they screwed around for the whole meeting trying to get some images from one of the user's digital camera, finally I asked them if I could see the camera and within a couple of minutes I and was doing a slide show with the images. I thought once again, how incredibly lucky I was to be running OSX... I've been programming the Mac, pretty much full time, since 1987. I do cross platform testing, and I am always so happy when I get back to the Mac... Best Regards, Bill Hernandez Plano, Texas