Re: FW: Postgres alongside MS SQL Server

>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?
>
>
It is not that it would (I haven't had it happen) but it could. I am
speaking more from a business liability
standpoint than a technical capability standpoint.

One would not typically in a production environment put to RDMS on the
same machine. Your management's
fears are well founded in general. They have nothing to do with
PostgreSQL as much as much as they have
to do with the fact that you are:

A. Running Win2000? Which although reasonably stable doesn't scale well.
B. Running MS SQL which is known to be a resource hog.
C. Considering putting PostgreSQL with an emulated environment on top of
it all.

My response would be the same if the question would about MySQL or
Firebird. It just eeks to bad mojo.
Think about the diagnosing problems!

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>Replies are greatly appreciated.
>
>-Peter
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com]
>Sent: April 22, 2004 10:09 AM
>To: Anony Mous
>Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
>Subject: Re: [GENERAL] FW: Postgres alongside MS SQL Server
>
>Hello,
>
>Well it of course depends on what you are doing. Traditionally I would
>say, "Are you nuts?" but it really depends
>on what you are doing. It is all about risk... if PostgreSQL freaks out
>and takes out the machine, what will happen
>to the MS SQL server? What about cost associated with downtime?
>
>The same goes for if the MS SQL server takes out the machine? How
>important is what PostgreSQL is doing?
>
>Considering you could put together a box that will outperform
>PostgreSQL/Cgwin running Linux for about 700 bucks.
>Why not just get a new machine and not risk the exposure?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>Anony Mous wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>We've got some clients that are concerned about running Postgresql 7.3.4 on
>>a Win2k Server box, alongside MS SQL Server. I've been running pg on my XP
>>machines for a long time now (with cygwin) and never had any sort of
>>problem. The db is fast and stable.
>>
>>Does anyone have any experience that would give some weight to our client's
>>concerns? Would there be any potential conflict between the postmaster and
>>MS SQL Server? Your experience and advice would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>-Peter
>>
>>
>>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>>
>> http://archives.postgresql.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL