Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

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
>