Thread: Running under Cygwin: stability - performance?
Can anyone provide me with info on the performace and stability of PostgreSQL runnning under Cygwin?
MIKE WEAVER
Software Developer
5, 42 Ladner Street
O'Connor, WA, 6163
All correspondence:
PO Box Y3502
East St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6832
P: (+618) 9331 2700
F: (+618) 9331 3733
M: 0419 299 170
W: http://www.corpusglobe.com/
E: mweaver@corpusglobe.com
This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above and may contain information that is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions expressed in the governing Corpus Globe client engagement letter. If you have received this Email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or telephone +61 8 9331 2700 and destroy the original message. Thank You.
Michael Weaver wrote:
> Can anyone provide me with info on the performace and stability of
> PostgreSQL runnning under Cygwin? MIKE WEAVER
> Software Developer
>
> 5, 42 Ladner Street
> O'Connor, WA, 6163
> All correspondence:
> PO Box Y3502
> East St Georges Terrace
> Perth WA 6832
>
> P: (+618) 9331 2700
> F: (+618) 9331 3733
> M: 0419 299 170
> W: http://www.corpusglobe.com/
> E: mweaver@corpusglobe.com
> This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
> named above and may contain information that is confidential. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice
> contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions
> expressed in the governing Corpus Globe client engagement letter. If
> you have received this Email in error, please notify us immediately
> by return email or telephone +61 8 9331 2700 and destroy the original
> message. Thank You.
Its been performing fine for me since pg7.1. The most major performance issue that I am aware of is that new conections are slow as for fork everything has to be copied. Also there is a limit of ~60 connections. This is assuming NT, under 9x its too unstable for production.
hth,
- Stuart
----- Original Message -----Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:37 AMSubject: Re: [CYGWIN] Running under Cygwin: stability - performance?Michael Weaver wrote:
> Can anyone provide me with info on the performace and stability of
> PostgreSQL runnning under Cygwin? MIKE WEAVER
> Software Developer
>
> 5, 42 Ladner Street
> O'Connor, WA, 6163
> All correspondence:
> PO Box Y3502
> East St Georges Terrace
> Perth WA 6832
>
> P: (+618) 9331 2700
> F: (+618) 9331 3733
> M: 0419 299 170
> W: http://www.corpusglobe.com/
> E: mweaver@corpusglobe.com
> This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
> named above and may contain information that is confidential. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
> dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice
> contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions
> expressed in the governing Corpus Globe client engagement letter. If
> you have received this Email in error, please notify us immediately
> by return email or telephone +61 8 9331 2700 and destroy the original
> message. Thank You.Its been performing fine for me since pg7.1. The most major performance issue that I am aware of is that new conections are slow as for fork everything has to be copied. Also there is a limit of ~60 connections. This is assuming NT, under 9x its too unstable for production.
hth,
- Stuart
George Weaver wrote: > Hi, > > I am relatively new to PostrgeSQL. I'm considering using it to > support a distributed application that potentially could be used on a > Windows 9x system. What is meant by the terms "stable" and > "unstable"? If PostgreSQL is not stable enough on 9x systems for > production, would I be advised to explore other options for database > support?? Understand, when we say stable, we mean relaible, dependable, and doesn't need to be rebooted for months or years. Windows, any version thus far, does not meet the minimum requirement of "stable," Windows 9x less so. That being said, if Windows 98 is stable enough for your application, I would not say that PostgreSQL is any less stable than your environment. > > Thanks, > George > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Henshall, Stuart - Design & Print > <mailto:SHenshall@westcountry-design-print.co.uk> > To: 'Michael Weaver' <mailto:mweaver@corpusglobe.com> ; > 'pgsql-cygwin@postgresql.org' > <mailto:%27pgsql-cygwin@postgresql.org%27> > Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 3:37 AM > Subject: Re: [CYGWIN] Running under Cygwin: stability - performance? > > Michael Weaver wrote: > > Can anyone provide me with info on the performace and stability of > > PostgreSQL runnning under Cygwin? MIKE WEAVER > > Software Developer > > > > 5, 42 Ladner Street > > O'Connor, WA, 6163 > > All correspondence: > > PO Box Y3502 > > East St Georges Terrace > > Perth WA 6832 > > > > P: (+618) 9331 2700 > > F: (+618) 9331 3733 > > M: 0419 299 170 > > W: http://www.corpusglobe.com/ > > E: mweaver@corpusglobe.com <mailto:mweaver@corpusglobe.com> > > This email is intended only for the use of the individual or entity > > named above and may contain information that is confidential. If > you > > are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any > > dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is strictly > > prohibited. When addressed to our clients, any opinions or advice > > contained in this email are subject to the terms and conditions > > expressed in the governing Corpus Globe client engagement > letter. If > > you have received this Email in error, please notify us immediately > > by return email or telephone +61 8 9331 2700 and destroy the > original > > message. Thank You. > > Its been performing fine for me since pg7.1. The most major > performance issue that I am aware of is that new conections are > slow as for fork everything has to be copied. Also there is a > limit of ~60 connections. This is assuming NT, under 9x its too > unstable for production. > > hth, > - Stuart >
> > > George Weaver wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am relatively new to PostrgeSQL. I'm considering using it to > > support a distributed application that potentially could be used on a > > Windows 9x system. What is meant by the terms "stable" and > > "unstable"? If PostgreSQL is not stable enough on 9x systems for > > production, would I be advised to explore other options for database > > support?? > > > Understand, when we say stable, we mean relaible, dependable, and > doesn't need to be rebooted for months or years. Windows, any version > thus far, does not meet the minimum requirement of "stable," Windows 9x > less so. > > That being said, if Windows 98 is stable enough for your application, I > would not say that PostgreSQL is any less stable than your environment. > > > > > Thanks, > > George I have also found postgres to be more stable than windows 9x for all intents and purposes. I'm currently at the end of a one-year development process where postgres is being used as the backend on hundreds of win9x machines in stores all over the states. In all my hundreds (at least) of testing (all on Japanese win98), I've had postgres as the point of failure no more than a handfull of times, and I stress my dev box so hard that it needs a good half-dozen reboots a day. This app is being developed with the understanding that the machines are going to be shut down at the end of every work day, and that's the only way I'd run postgres in any kind of win9x environment. That said, I find the performance to also be very impressive (once I homebrewed a connection pooling scheme; You can't even use it if you force alot of forks, as already explained in a previous reply), and find it fits our needs for scalability (if someone needs more power/security, we can set up a *nix box for them), reliability (like I said, it's more reliable than the underlying OS ;), and, of course, price (seriously, this was a major consideration). I wouldn't touch postgres under 9x if you need huge uptime, though. Also, security can be a concern (esp. if the operator of the machine isn't supposed to be able to directly manipulate data, but that's not just a 9x concern any more...), as can load...but it's all a matter of what you're going to do with it! Hope this helps! -Brian Marshall