At 10:19 AM 4/28/2004 -0600, Anony Mous wrote:
>I'm not ruling out the idea of running with a separate linux box, but there
>are some strong reasons to stick with the MS box. So, your point is well
>taken.
>
>That aside, however, I still need to draw from various people's experience
>to get a feel for any problems that may arise when running next to MS SQL
>Server. I've heard that Postgresql is a task that runs with "Normal"
>priority, and can therefore not lock up the machine to the point where it's
>not recoverable. In contrast, I've heard as well that MS SQL Server does
>indeed run as a high priority task and will take precedence when the OS
>doles out CPU resources.
>
>How is it possible for Postgresql to "freak out" and take out the machine?
How easy/likely is it for a program run as a normal user to blue screen an
MS server?
How easy/likely is it for a program run as a normal user to do the equiv to
a FreeBSD/Linux server?
You can also effectively take out a machine by using too much memory and
going into swap death-spiral.
I'm not sure if it is easy to limit Postgresql memory usage "gracefully" on
an MS box. AFAIK you can do memory limits on Linux/Unix boxes.
MS built-in task manager doesn't let you kill all processes. You need 3rd
party tools to do the equiv of kill -9. But of course you shouldn't kill -9
postgresql. Which brings us to something I don't know the answer of -
what's the safe way of terminating postgresql on a MS server?
Regards,
Link.