Thread: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X
We currently are running a data intensive web service on a Mac using 4D. The developers of our site are looking at converting this web service to PostgreSQL. We will have a backup of our three production servers at our location. The developers are recommending that I purchase a 2GHz Dual Processor G5 with between 2GB and 4 GB RAM. They say that this configuration would be able to easily run a copy of all three production servers. My question is: has anybody had any experience comparing the performance of PostgreSQL on a G5 Mac versus a PC running Linux? Can anyone tell me if there are any benefits of running PostgreSQL on one platform over the other. Anything that can help me make the best decision would be appreciated. -- James Strickland - MCP IT Manager American Roamer 901-377-8585 http://www.americanroamer.com
We use PostgreSQL 7.x on both OS X and Linux. We used to run OS X in production, but due to numerous problems we switched to Linux. OS X was not stable at all, especially under load. It was also a poor performer under load or not. In my tests, a P3/800, 512MB RAM (100MHz bus) was consistently faster at all queries than a G4/1.25GHz, 1.5GB RAM (266MHz bus) for our application. Both machines had single IDE drives. Another thing to consider is that you can only get ATA drives with Apple hardware. SCSI is not available from Apple, and SCSI devices have very poor support under OS X. If a server with ATA drives goes down at the wrong time, you can lose data. This happened to us with our production OS X server last year. An extended power outage ran out the UPS battery, the shutdown script did not stop the server in time, and we had to restore from an earlier backup. For details on why this can happen with ATA drives, see this thread: <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-10/msg01343.php> Overall, PostgreSQL has been rock solid, very fast, and headache-free on Linux. A complete change from OS X. Our main production PostgreSQL server has been up for 234 days now. In that period, the only downtime for PostgreSQL has been for planned upgrades. As a side note, we've also had major problems running multi-threaded servers on OS X which run great (stable and much, much faster) on Linux. - Jeff >We currently are running a data intensive web service on a Mac using >4D. The developers of our site are looking at converting this web >service to PostgreSQL. We will have a backup of our three production >servers at our location. The developers are recommending that I >purchase a 2GHz Dual Processor G5 with between 2GB and 4 GB RAM. >They say that this configuration would be able to easily run a copy >of all three production servers. My question is: has anybody had any >experience comparing the performance of PostgreSQL on a G5 Mac >versus a PC running Linux? Can anyone tell me if there are any >benefits of running PostgreSQL on one platform over the other. >Anything that can help me make the best decision would be >appreciated. > >-- >James Strickland - MCP >IT Manager >American Roamer >901-377-8585 >http://www.americanroamer.com > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org -- Jeff Bohmer VisionLink, Inc. _________________________________ 303.402.0170 x121 http://www.visionlink.org/ _________________________________ People. Tools. Change. Community.
I noticed you ran PostgreSQL on a G4. What version of OS X were you running? Is it possible the issues you were facing were fixed with the newer G5 processor? Jeff Bohmer wrote: > > We use PostgreSQL 7.x on both OS X and Linux. We used to run OS X in > production, but due to numerous problems we switched to Linux. OS X > was not stable at all, especially under load. It was also a poor > performer under load or not. > > In my tests, a P3/800, 512MB RAM (100MHz bus) was consistently faster > at all queries than a G4/1.25GHz, 1.5GB RAM (266MHz bus) for our > application. Both machines had single IDE drives. > > Another thing to consider is that you can only get ATA drives with > Apple hardware. SCSI is not available from Apple, and SCSI devices > have very poor support under OS X. If a server with ATA drives goes > down at the wrong time, you can lose data. This happened to us with > our production OS X server last year. An extended power outage ran > out the UPS battery, the shutdown script did not stop the server in > time, and we had to restore from an earlier backup. For details on > why this can happen with ATA drives, see this thread: > > <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-10/msg01343.php> > > Overall, PostgreSQL has been rock solid, very fast, and headache-free > on Linux. A complete change from OS X. Our main production > PostgreSQL server has been up for 234 days now. In that period, the > only downtime for PostgreSQL has been for planned upgrades. > > As a side note, we've also had major problems running multi-threaded > servers on OS X which run great (stable and much, much faster) on Linux. > > - Jeff > > > >> We currently are running a data intensive web service on a Mac using >> 4D. The developers of our site are looking at converting this web >> service to PostgreSQL. We will have a backup of our three production >> servers at our location. The developers are recommending that I >> purchase a 2GHz Dual Processor G5 with between 2GB and 4 GB RAM. They >> say that this configuration would be able to easily run a copy of all >> three production servers. My question is: has anybody had any >> experience comparing the performance of PostgreSQL on a G5 Mac versus >> a PC running Linux? Can anyone tell me if there are any benefits of >> running PostgreSQL on one platform over the other. Anything that can >> help me make the best decision would be appreciated. >> >> -- >> James Strickland - MCP >> IT Manager >> American Roamer >> 901-377-8585 >> http://www.americanroamer.com >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? >> >> http://archives.postgresql.org > > > -- James Strickland - MCP IT Manager American Roamer 901-377-8585 http://www.americanroamer.com
>I noticed you ran PostgreSQL on a G4. What version of OS X were you >running? Is it possible the issues you were facing were fixed with >the newer G5 processor? We were using OS X 10.2 in production. We currently use 10.3 for our development machines. I would be shocked if a processor could fix stability issues in an operating system. As for performance, I cannot say how much better PostgreSQL runs on a G5 as we don't have any G5s. In terms of hardware specs, a G4/1.25Ghz should blow away a P3/800. But it didn't for us, and I think that is because Linux/x86 is much more efficient than OS X/ppc. I do not expect that to change with a newer ppc processor. Since your your developers believe a dual G5 to be plenty, you will probably get more than enough performance from an XServe G5 and any comparable 2-way Intel or AMD x86 system. PostgreSQL should handily outperform 4D. If those systems are in your price range, and stability isn't a big concern, you should probably go with the OS you are more familiar with. - Jeff >Jeff Bohmer wrote: > >> >>We use PostgreSQL 7.x on both OS X and Linux. We used to run OS X >>in production, but due to numerous problems we switched to Linux. >>OS X was not stable at all, especially under load. It was also a >>poor performer under load or not. >> >>In my tests, a P3/800, 512MB RAM (100MHz bus) was consistently >>faster at all queries than a G4/1.25GHz, 1.5GB RAM (266MHz bus) for >>our application. Both machines had single IDE drives. >> >>Another thing to consider is that you can only get ATA drives with >>Apple hardware. SCSI is not available from Apple, and SCSI devices >>have very poor support under OS X. If a server with ATA drives >>goes down at the wrong time, you can lose data. This happened to >>us with our production OS X server last year. An extended power >>outage ran out the UPS battery, the shutdown script did not stop >>the server in time, and we had to restore from an earlier backup. >>For details on why this can happen with ATA drives, see this thread: >> >><http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-10/msg01343.php> >> >>Overall, PostgreSQL has been rock solid, very fast, and >>headache-free on Linux. A complete change from OS X. Our main >>production PostgreSQL server has been up for 234 days now. In that >>period, the only downtime for PostgreSQL has been for planned >>upgrades. >> >>As a side note, we've also had major problems running >>multi-threaded servers on OS X which run great (stable and much, >>much faster) on Linux. >> >>- Jeff >> >> >>>We currently are running a data intensive web service on a Mac >>>using 4D. The developers of our site are looking at converting >>>this web service to PostgreSQL. We will have a backup of our three >>>production servers at our location. The developers are >>>recommending that I purchase a 2GHz Dual Processor G5 with between >>>2GB and 4 GB RAM. They say that this configuration would be able >>>to easily run a copy of all three production servers. My question >>>is: has anybody had any experience comparing the performance of >>>PostgreSQL on a G5 Mac versus a PC running Linux? Can anyone tell >>>me if there are any benefits of running PostgreSQL on one platform >>>over the other. Anything that can help me make the best decision >>>would be appreciated. >>> >>>-- >>>James Strickland - MCP >>>IT Manager >>>American Roamer >>>901-377-8585 >>>http://www.americanroamer.com >>> >>> >>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? >>> >>> http://archives.postgresql.org -- Jeff Bohmer VisionLink, Inc. _________________________________ 303.402.0170 x121 http://www.visionlink.org/ _________________________________ People. Tools. Change. Community.
Well, the whole reason I have asked this question is because my developer swears by OS X and PostgreSQL. However, I wanted opinions from other people who have possibly used a similar setup so I can make an informed decision. I will certainly keep your advice in mind. I guess the only reason I was asking about the version of OS X and the G5 processor, is because that is all my developer uses and he seems to think they make a great combination, but that seems to be at odds with your experience. Perhaps some others will weigh in with their experiences and I will be able to make a sound decision. Fortunately there is no great rush to decide. Thanks for your help. Jeff Bohmer wrote: >> I noticed you ran PostgreSQL on a G4. What version of OS X were you >> running? Is it possible the issues you were facing were fixed with >> the newer G5 processor? > > > We were using OS X 10.2 in production. We currently use 10.3 for our > development machines. > > I would be shocked if a processor could fix stability issues in an > operating system. As for performance, I cannot say how much better > PostgreSQL runs on a G5 as we don't have any G5s. In terms of > hardware specs, a G4/1.25Ghz should blow away a P3/800. But it didn't > for us, and I think that is because Linux/x86 is much more efficient > than OS X/ppc. I do not expect that to change with a newer ppc > processor. > > Since your your developers believe a dual G5 to be plenty, you will > probably get more than enough performance from an XServe G5 and any > comparable 2-way Intel or AMD x86 system. PostgreSQL should handily > outperform 4D. If those systems are in your price range, and > stability isn't a big concern, you should probably go with the OS you > are more familiar with. > > - Jeff > > >> Jeff Bohmer wrote: >> >>> >>> We use PostgreSQL 7.x on both OS X and Linux. We used to run OS X >>> in production, but due to numerous problems we switched to Linux. OS >>> X was not stable at all, especially under load. It was also a poor >>> performer under load or not. >>> >>> In my tests, a P3/800, 512MB RAM (100MHz bus) was consistently >>> faster at all queries than a G4/1.25GHz, 1.5GB RAM (266MHz bus) for >>> our application. Both machines had single IDE drives. >>> >>> Another thing to consider is that you can only get ATA drives with >>> Apple hardware. SCSI is not available from Apple, and SCSI devices >>> have very poor support under OS X. If a server with ATA drives goes >>> down at the wrong time, you can lose data. This happened to us with >>> our production OS X server last year. An extended power outage ran >>> out the UPS battery, the shutdown script did not stop the server in >>> time, and we had to restore from an earlier backup. For details on >>> why this can happen with ATA drives, see this thread: >>> >>> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-10/msg01343.php> >>> >>> Overall, PostgreSQL has been rock solid, very fast, and >>> headache-free on Linux. A complete change from OS X. Our main >>> production PostgreSQL server has been up for 234 days now. In that >>> period, the only downtime for PostgreSQL has been for planned upgrades. >>> >>> As a side note, we've also had major problems running multi-threaded >>> servers on OS X which run great (stable and much, much faster) on >>> Linux. >>> >>> - Jeff >>> >>> >>>> We currently are running a data intensive web service on a Mac >>>> using 4D. The developers of our site are looking at converting this >>>> web service to PostgreSQL. We will have a backup of our three >>>> production servers at our location. The developers are recommending >>>> that I purchase a 2GHz Dual Processor G5 with between 2GB and 4 GB >>>> RAM. They say that this configuration would be able to easily run a >>>> copy of all three production servers. My question is: has anybody >>>> had any experience comparing the performance of PostgreSQL on a G5 >>>> Mac versus a PC running Linux? Can anyone tell me if there are any >>>> benefits of running PostgreSQL on one platform over the other. >>>> Anything that can help me make the best decision would be appreciated. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> James Strickland - MCP >>>> IT Manager >>>> American Roamer >>>> 901-377-8585 >>>> http://www.americanroamer.com >>>> >>>> >>>> ---------------------------(end of >>>> broadcast)--------------------------- >>>> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? >>>> >>>> http://archives.postgresql.org >>> > -- James Strickland - MCP IT Manager American Roamer 901-377-8585 http://www.americanroamer.com
On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Jeff Bohmer wrote: > We use PostgreSQL 7.x on both OS X and Linux. We used to run OS X in > production, but due to numerous problems we switched to Linux. OS X > was not stable at all, especially under load. It was also a poor > performer under load or not. Did you (or anyone) ever compare performance of PostgreSQL under PPC Linux running on the G4 or G5? -Kevin Murphy
OS 10.3 IMHO is more stable then 10.2. I haven't us OS X in a production environment only for development. I have yet to have any problems with it crashing. I haven't really run any tests to load it down but that's only because I never expect to use in production. We have far too many IBM Servers with battery backed up RAID controllers that I do not see a sudden switch to any other platform. If I was a gambling man I would put my money on Linux doing a better job with postgres, but that's mainly because of the better hardware options in regard to disks. If your DB is processor heavy the G5 will most likely out perform x86 processors. If you go with the XRaid I think all bets are off with regards to dollar for dollar PC/Mac comparison.. On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 15:04:03 -0600, Jim Strickland <jims@americanroamer.com> wrote: > Well, the whole reason I have asked this question is because my > developer swears by OS X and PostgreSQL. However, I wanted opinions from > other people who have possibly used a similar setup so I can make an > informed decision. I will certainly keep your advice in mind. I guess > the only reason I was asking about the version of OS X and the G5 > processor, is because that is all my developer uses and he seems to > think they make a great combination, but that seems to be at odds with > your experience. > > Perhaps some others will weigh in with their experiences and I will be > able to make a sound decision. Fortunately there is no great rush to > decide. Thanks for your help. > > > > Jeff Bohmer wrote: > > >> I noticed you ran PostgreSQL on a G4. What version of OS X were you > >> running? Is it possible the issues you were facing were fixed with > >> the newer G5 processor? > > > > > > We were using OS X 10.2 in production. We currently use 10.3 for our > > development machines. > > > > I would be shocked if a processor could fix stability issues in an > > operating system. As for performance, I cannot say how much better > > PostgreSQL runs on a G5 as we don't have any G5s. In terms of > > hardware specs, a G4/1.25Ghz should blow away a P3/800. But it didn't > > for us, and I think that is because Linux/x86 is much more efficient > > than OS X/ppc. I do not expect that to change with a newer ppc > > processor. > > > > Since your your developers believe a dual G5 to be plenty, you will > > probably get more than enough performance from an XServe G5 and any > > comparable 2-way Intel or AMD x86 system. PostgreSQL should handily > > outperform 4D. If those systems are in your price range, and > > stability isn't a big concern, you should probably go with the OS you > > are more familiar with. > > > > - Jeff > > > > > >> Jeff Bohmer wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> We use PostgreSQL 7.x on both OS X and Linux. We used to run OS X > >>> in production, but due to numerous problems we switched to Linux. OS > >>> X was not stable at all, especially under load. It was also a poor > >>> performer under load or not. > >>> > >>> In my tests, a P3/800, 512MB RAM (100MHz bus) was consistently > >>> faster at all queries than a G4/1.25GHz, 1.5GB RAM (266MHz bus) for > >>> our application. Both machines had single IDE drives. > >>> > >>> Another thing to consider is that you can only get ATA drives with > >>> Apple hardware. SCSI is not available from Apple, and SCSI devices > >>> have very poor support under OS X. If a server with ATA drives goes > >>> down at the wrong time, you can lose data. This happened to us with > >>> our production OS X server last year. An extended power outage ran > >>> out the UPS battery, the shutdown script did not stop the server in > >>> time, and we had to restore from an earlier backup. For details on > >>> why this can happen with ATA drives, see this thread: > >>> > >>> <http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-10/msg01343.php> > >>> > >>> Overall, PostgreSQL has been rock solid, very fast, and > >>> headache-free on Linux. A complete change from OS X. Our main > >>> production PostgreSQL server has been up for 234 days now. In that > >>> period, the only downtime for PostgreSQL has been for planned upgrades. > >>> > >>> As a side note, we've also had major problems running multi-threaded > >>> servers on OS X which run great (stable and much, much faster) on > >>> Linux. > >>> > >>> - Jeff > >>> > >>> > >>>> We currently are running a data intensive web service on a Mac > >>>> using 4D. The developers of our site are looking at converting this > >>>> web service to PostgreSQL. We will have a backup of our three > >>>> production servers at our location. The developers are recommending > >>>> that I purchase a 2GHz Dual Processor G5 with between 2GB and 4 GB > >>>> RAM. They say that this configuration would be able to easily run a > >>>> copy of all three production servers. My question is: has anybody > >>>> had any experience comparing the performance of PostgreSQL on a G5 > >>>> Mac versus a PC running Linux? Can anyone tell me if there are any > >>>> benefits of running PostgreSQL on one platform over the other. > >>>> Anything that can help me make the best decision would be appreciated. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> James Strickland - MCP > >>>> IT Manager > >>>> American Roamer > >>>> 901-377-8585 > >>>> http://www.americanroamer.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ---------------------------(end of > >>>> broadcast)--------------------------- > >>>> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > >>>> > >>>> http://archives.postgresql.org > >>> > > > > -- > James Strickland - MCP > IT Manager > American Roamer > 901-377-8585 > http://www.americanroamer.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
on 11/3/04, Jeff Bohmer <bohmer@visionlink.org> wrote: >We use PostgreSQL 7.x on both OS X and Linux. We used to run OS X in >production, but due to numerous problems we switched to Linux. OS X >was not stable at all, especially under load. It was also a poor >performer under load or not. > >In my tests, a P3/800, 512MB RAM (100MHz bus) was consistently faster >at all queries than a G4/1.25GHz, 1.5GB RAM (266MHz bus) for our >application. Both machines had single IDE drives. In my experience, a G4/1.25GHz computer with standard apple drive was much faster than the PC (Pentium 2+GHz, don't remember details) we tested running Linux. Both machines had plenty of RAM, same PostgreSQL settings, etc. The PC was much slower than the mac running backup/restore (more than 2x slower). The queries we tested were slower as well. Both machines had IDE drives. I'd think the Linux box could probably be made to be faster, but it had a long way to go to even match the G4. We have had excellent stability on both G4 and G5, MacOS 10.2.x and 10.3.x, PostgreSQL 7.3.x and 7.4.x. The only time we experienced instability was just after the G5 was released, the combination of G5, MacOS 10.2.7 and PostgreSQL 7.3.x just didn't work very well. Upgrading the G5 to MacOS 10.3.x and PostgreSQL 7.4.x brought back the stability we expected and we haven't really had any problems since. >As a side note, we've also had major problems running multi-threaded >servers on OS X which run great (stable and much, much faster) on >Linux. Any specific examples? Apache 2.x with PHP 4.3.x has been running well on various single and dual-cpu MacOS X boxes here. -- Jim Crate Deep Sky Technologies, Inc.
>In my experience, a G4/1.25GHz computer with standard apple drive was much >faster than the PC (Pentium 2+GHz, don't remember details) we tested running >Linux. Both machines had plenty of RAM, same PostgreSQL settings, >etc. The PC >was much slower than the mac running backup/restore (more than 2x >slower). The >queries we tested were slower as well. Both machines had IDE >drives. I'd think >the Linux box could probably be made to be faster, but it had a long way to go >to even match the G4. One possible explanation for your results would be that the Mac IDE drive lies about write completion while the PC IDE drive does not. You mention a backup/restore test, which is very write-intensive. Any system with an IDE drive that lies about write completion is going to blow away (write performance-wise) a system with an IDE drive that does not lie about it. Our tests last year were all with SELECT queries to prevent this factor from skewing our results. (Our app is read-heavy and we knew we would be getting a good hardware RAID setup that could handle the writes.) I do not have the same Apple hardware from a year ago to reproduce my tests. If I get time in the next week, I can try something on the same PC (RedHat 9, P3/800) vs. a G4/933, OS X Server 10.2. >We have had excellent stability on both G4 and G5, MacOS 10.2.x and 10.3.x, >PostgreSQL 7.3.x and 7.4.x. The only time we experienced instability was just >after the G5 was released, the combination of G5, MacOS 10.2.7 and PostgreSQL >7.3.x just didn't work very well. Upgrading the G5 to MacOS 10.3.x and >PostgreSQL 7.4.x brought back the stability we expected and we haven't really >had any problems since. Our primary OS X 10.2 server crashed very frequently. Sometimes more than once per day. We changed machines and the crashes continued. Apple HW test on both boxes showed no problems. The vast majority of these crashes were under moderate load (~120 queries/min). A few times, reindexing would cause a crash without any other DB activity. With almost all of these crashes, there were no CrashReporter log entries. At that point, we felt like we had no recourse but to try something different (Linux/x86) and haven't looked back. - Jeff -- Jeff Bohmer VisionLink, Inc. _________________________________ 303.402.0170 x121 http://www.visionlink.org/ _________________________________ People. Tools. Change. Community.
>> In my experience, a G4/1.25GHz computer with standard apple drive was >> much >> faster than the PC (Pentium 2+GHz, don't remember details) we tested >> running >> Linux. Both machines had plenty of RAM, same PostgreSQL settings, >> etc. The PC >> was much slower than the mac running backup/restore (more than 2x >> slower). The >> queries we tested were slower as well. Both machines had IDE drives. >> I'd think >> the Linux box could probably be made to be faster, but it had a long >> way to go >> to even match the G4. > > One possible explanation for your results would be that the Mac IDE > drive lies about write completion while the PC IDE drive does not. You > mention a backup/restore test, which is very write-intensive. Any > system with an IDE drive that lies about write completion is going to > blow away (write performance-wise) a system with an IDE drive that > does not lie about it. Our tests last year were all with SELECT > queries to prevent this factor from skewing our results. (Our app is > read-heavy and we knew we would be getting a good hardware RAID setup > that could handle the writes.) > > I do not have the same Apple hardware from a year ago to reproduce my > tests. If I get time in the next week, I can try something on the > same PC (RedHat 9, P3/800) vs. a G4/933, OS X Server 10.2. I would say this test is not very meaningful as OS X Server 10.2 is old, and...not as stable as one could hope, especially if used for other services. OS X Server 10.3 is better / much more stable (the "good enough" depends on what you are doing with it). Still, I would recommend using the standard OS X 10.3 on a separate box and tune the kernel params for optimal Postgres use, this is if you already have one spare Mac for that. Upgrading to the G5 will only be really usefull if you have very CPU intensive queries. If you are essentially i/o bound, than faster disks make more sense, and as previously said, fast disks on a Mac require a third-party SCSI card and an external RAID or an xRaid. Can be expensive or "cheap" depending on the disk amount you need. I would make some benchmarks... hth, Philippe > > >> We have had excellent stability on both G4 and G5, MacOS 10.2.x and >> 10.3.x, >> PostgreSQL 7.3.x and 7.4.x. The only time we experienced instability >> was just >> after the G5 was released, the combination of G5, MacOS 10.2.7 and >> PostgreSQL >> 7.3.x just didn't work very well. Upgrading the G5 to MacOS 10.3.x >> and >> PostgreSQL 7.4.x brought back the stability we expected and we >> haven't really >> had any problems since. > > Our primary OS X 10.2 server crashed very frequently. Sometimes more > than once per day. We changed machines and the crashes continued. > Apple HW test on both boxes showed no problems. The vast majority of > these crashes were under moderate load (~120 queries/min). A few > times, reindexing would cause a crash without any other DB activity. > With almost all of these crashes, there were no CrashReporter log > entries. At that point, we felt like we had no recourse but to try > something different (Linux/x86) and haven't looked back. > > - Jeff > > -- > > Jeff Bohmer > VisionLink, Inc. > _________________________________ > 303.402.0170 x121 > http://www.visionlink.org/ > _________________________________ > People. Tools. Change. Community. > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
My guess is that you will get better performance from a similarly priced Dual Opteron for the following reasons: 1) OS-X is not 64-bit yet, 64-bit Linux/BSD OS's are available 2) GCC is far better tuned for x86 than PowerPC/Itanium/etc 3) Postgres *seems* to prefer Opteron's ondie memory controller architecture over shared bus -- especially in SMP configs Is it enough of a difference? If you needed to eek out every possible % performance because you have a critical production need, then the answer is yes. Otherwise, it's easier to stick with the OS you know. Jim Strickland wrote: > Well, the whole reason I have asked this question is because my > developer swears by OS X and PostgreSQL. However, I wanted opinions from > other people who have possibly used a similar setup so I can make an > informed decision. I will certainly keep your advice in mind. I guess > the only reason I was asking about the version of OS X and the G5 > processor, is because that is all my developer uses and he seems to > think they make a great combination, but that seems to be at odds with > your experience. > > Perhaps some others will weigh in with their experiences and I will be > able to make a sound decision. Fortunately there is no great rush to > decide. Thanks for your help.
I've been working with PostgreSQL on OS X (G4, G5 and dual G5 systems) for a few months now, and overall I've been really pleased; for us, it seems to be a good match. If you have both an OS X and a Linux or BSD system available, you could run pgbench against both and get a rough idea on how they compare. On Nov 4, 2004, at 1:33 PM, William Yu wrote: > My guess is that you will get better performance from a similarly > priced Dual Opteron for the following reasons: > > 1) OS-X is not 64-bit yet, 64-bit Linux/BSD OS's are available > 2) GCC is far better tuned for x86 than PowerPC/Itanium/etc > 3) Postgres *seems* to prefer Opteron's ondie memory controller > architecture over shared bus -- especially in SMP configs > > Is it enough of a difference? If you needed to eek out every possible > % performance because you have a critical production need, then the > answer is yes. Otherwise, it's easier to stick with the OS you know. > > > Jim Strickland wrote: >> Well, the whole reason I have asked this question is because my >> developer swears by OS X and PostgreSQL. However, I wanted opinions >> from other people who have possibly used a similar setup so I can >> make an informed decision. I will certainly keep your advice in mind. >> I guess the only reason I was asking about the version of OS X and >> the G5 processor, is because that is all my developer uses and he >> seems to think they make a great combination, but that seems to be at >> odds with your experience. >> Perhaps some others will weigh in with their experiences and I will >> be able to make a sound decision. Fortunately there is no great rush >> to decide. Thanks for your help. > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to > majordomo@postgresql.org >