Обсуждение: Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
As anyone done benchmarking tests with postgres running on solaris and linux (redhat) assuming both environment has similar hardware, memory, processing speed etc. By reading few posts here, i can see linux would outperform solaris cause linux being very good at kernel caching than solaris which is being the key performance booster for postgres. what is the preferred OS for postgres deployment if given an option between linux and solaris. As well as filesystem to be used (xfs, ufs, ext3...). Any pointer to source of information is appreciated. Thanks, Stalin
Stalin, > As anyone done benchmarking tests with postgres running on solaris and linux > (redhat) assuming both environment has similar hardware, memory, processing > speed etc. By reading few posts here, i can see linux would outperform > solaris cause linux being very good at kernel caching than solaris which is > being the key performance booster for postgres. what is the preferred OS > for postgres deployment if given an option between linux and solaris. As > well as filesystem to be used (xfs, ufs, ext3...). Any pointer to source of > information is appreciated. Most of that is a matter of opinion. Read the cumulative archives of this list. -- -Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
The hardware platform to deploy onto may well influence your choice : Intel is usually the most cost effective , which means using Linux makes sense in that case (anybody measured Pg performance on Solaris/Intel....?). If however, you are going to run a very "big in some sense" database, then 64 bit hardware is desirable and you can look at the Sun offerings. In this case you can run either Linux or Solaris (some informal benchmarks suggest that for small numbers of cpus, Linux is probably faster). It might be worth considering Apple if you want a 64-bit chip that has a clock speed comparable to Intel's - the Xserv is similarly priced to Sun V210 (both dual cpu 1U's). Are you free to choose any hardware? best wishes Mark Subbiah, Stalin wrote: >(snipped) what is the preferred OS >for postgres deployment if given an option between linux and solaris. > > >
Mark, > It might be worth considering Apple if you want a 64-bit chip that has a > clock speed comparable to Intel's - the Xserv is similarly priced to Sun > V210 (both dual cpu 1U's). Personally I'd stay *far* away from the XServs until Apple learns to build some real server harware. The current XServs have internal parts more appropriate to a Dell desktop (promise controller, low-speed commodity IDE drives), than a server. If Apple has prices these IU desktop machines similar to Sun, then I sense doom ahead for the Apple Server Division. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Mon, Mar 22, 2004 at 04:05:45PM -0800, Subbiah, Stalin wrote:
> being the key performance booster for postgres. what is the preferred OS
> for postgres deployment if given an option between linux and solaris. As
One thing this very much depends on is what you're trying to do.
Suns have a reputation for greater reliability. While my own
experience with Sun hardware has been rather shy of sterling, I _can_
say that it stands head and shoulders above a lot of the x86 gear you
can get.
If you're planning to use Solaris on x86, don't bother. Solaris is a
slow, bloated pig compared to Linux, at least when it comes to
managing the largish number of processes that Postgres requires.
If pure speed is what you're after, I have found that 2-way, 32 bit
Linux on P-IIIs compares very favourably to 4 way 64 bit Ultra SPARC
IIs.
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun
Josh Berkus wrote: >Mark, > > > >>It might be worth considering Apple if you want a 64-bit chip that has a >>clock speed comparable to Intel's - the Xserv is similarly priced to Sun >>V210 (both dual cpu 1U's). >> >> > >Personally I'd stay *far* away from the XServs until Apple learns to build >some real server harware. The current XServs have internal parts more >appropriate to a Dell desktop (promise controller, low-speed commodity IDE >drives), than a server. > >If Apple has prices these IU desktop machines similar to Sun, then I sense >doom ahead for the Apple Server Division. > > > (thinks...) Point taken - the Xserv is pretty "entry level"... However, having recently benchmarked a 280R vs a PIII Dell using a Promise ide raid controller - and finding the Dell comparable (with write cache *disabled*), I suspect that the Xserv has a pretty good chance of outperforming a V210 (certainly would be interesting to try out....) What I think has happened is that over the last few years then "cheap / slow" ide stuff has gotten pretty fast - even when you make "write mean write".... cheers Mark