Thread: Postgresql on windows / solid state
Good day all
Someone has asked me now about this and I thought this to be the best place to get some answers.
What they would like to know is whether there is a performance degration from running PostgreSQL on Windows in comparison to Linux.
Secondly, is it viable or worth it to look at Solid State drive as storage method instead of 15k sas disks for instance? What is the performance difference in this regard.
Perhaps someone out there is running with this config or otherwise done some testing on it that can assist?
Regards
Machiel
Someone has asked me now about this and I thought this to be the best place to get some answers.
What they would like to know is whether there is a performance degration from running PostgreSQL on Windows in comparison to Linux.
Secondly, is it viable or worth it to look at Solid State drive as storage method instead of 15k sas disks for instance? What is the performance difference in this regard.
Perhaps someone out there is running with this config or otherwise done some testing on it that can assist?
Regards
Machiel
Machiel,
There is quite a bit of information available on the net on the use of solid state within databases in general as well as specific to PostgreSQL. It is worth reading about it in full (I recommend https://www.packtpub.com/postgresql-9-0-high-performance/book for some good information on it). In summary though you need to spend a lot of money on solid state drives in order for them to be safe for databases due to write back cache - the more expensive ones will have battery backup cache to protect your WAL in the event of a power cut. Write through cache isn't generally viable for solid state due to the way the technology works. It usually isn't cost effective to use solid state compared to getting good SAS disks.
I can't really comment much on using PostgreSQL on Windows other than to say that PostgreSQL defers a lot of its functionality onto the OS such as backups, WAL archving and to a certain extent block caching. Therefore a good OS is more important than on other databases and I imagine that using Linux would make the life of the DBA much happier.
--
View my Linkedin profile
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Machiel Richards <machielr@rdc.co.za> wrote:
Secondly, is it viable or worth it to look at Solid State drive as storage method instead of 15k sas disks for instance? What is the performance difference in this regard.
There is quite a bit of information available on the net on the use of solid state within databases in general as well as specific to PostgreSQL. It is worth reading about it in full (I recommend https://www.packtpub.com/postgresql-9-0-high-performance/book for some good information on it). In summary though you need to spend a lot of money on solid state drives in order for them to be safe for databases due to write back cache - the more expensive ones will have battery backup cache to protect your WAL in the event of a power cut. Write through cache isn't generally viable for solid state due to the way the technology works. It usually isn't cost effective to use solid state compared to getting good SAS disks.
I can't really comment much on using PostgreSQL on Windows other than to say that PostgreSQL defers a lot of its functionality onto the OS such as backups, WAL archving and to a certain extent block caching. Therefore a good OS is more important than on other databases and I imagine that using Linux would make the life of the DBA much happier.
--
View my Linkedin profile
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 8:26 AM, Machiel Richards <machielr@rdc.co.za> wrote:
Secondly, is it viable or worth it to look at Solid State drive as storage method instead of 15k sas disks for instance? What is the performance difference in this regard.
On 2010-11-23, Machiel Richards <machielr@rdc.co.za> wrote: > What they would like to know is whether there is a > performance degration from running PostgreSQL on Windows in comparison > to Linux. postgres was designed for posix so the lack of unix domain sockets and fork() will slow it down a little. the memory management system may have an effect too. filesystem differences may slso have a part to play > Secondly, is it viable or worth it to look at Solid > State drive as storage method instead of 15k sas disks for instance? > What is the performance difference in this regard. SSD will be mauch faster if the database is large enough to mostly miss the disk cache. -- ⚂⚃ 100% natural
On 25 Nov 2010 01:48:25 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote: ... > > Secondly, is it viable or worth it to look at Solid > > State drive as storage method instead of 15k sas disks for instance? > > What is the performance difference in this regard. > > SSD will be mauch faster if the database is large enough to mostly > miss the disk cache. He could also use a mix: SSD as cache and 15KRPM HDz underneath. -- "I think sex is better than logic, but I can't prove it."