> > > This was an intersting Win32/linux comparison. I expected
> Linux to
> > > scale better, but I was surprised how poorly XP scaled. It
> > > reinforces our perception that Win32 is for low traffic servers.
> >
> > That's a bit harsh given the lack of any further
> investigation so far
> > isn't it? Win32 can run perfectly well with other DBMSs
> with hundreds
> > of users.
>
> The general opinion of server users is that you need 2-4 more
> Win32 servers to do the same work as one Unix-like server.
> That and the difficulty of automated administration and
> security problems is what is preventing Win32 from making
> greater inroads into the server marketplace.
>
> Of course these are just generalizations.
Is this for Postgresql Cygwin? You surely can't mean "for all server
tasks" - if so, I would say that's *way* off. There is a difference, but
it's more along the line of single-digit percentage in my experience -
provided you config your machines reasonably, of course.
(In my experience, Win32 MSSQLServer often outperforms postgresql on
Linux. Granted you can tweak postgresql up to higher speeds, but MS does
most of that tweaking automatically... Talking of tweaking a lot more
specific than just raising the memory limits from the installation
default, of course)
I do agree on the automated administration though... It's a major PITA.
//Magnus