Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux

From: "Matt Clark" <matt(at)ymogen(dot)net>
To: "Subbiah, Stalin" <SSubbiah(at)netopia(dot)com>,"'Andrew Sullivan'" <ajs(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
Date: 2004-03-23 18:51:43
Message-ID: OAEAKHEHCMLBLIDGAFELEEICFBAA.matt@ymogen.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
If it's going to be write intensive then the RAID controller will be the most important thing.  A dual p3/500 with a write-back
cache will smoke either of the boxes you mention using software RAID on write performance.

As for the compute intensive side (complex joins & sorts etc), the Dell will most likely beat the Sun by some distance, although
what the Sun lacks in CPU power it may make up a bit in memory bandwidth/latency.

Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Subbiah,
> Stalin
> Sent: 23 March 2004 18:41
> To: 'Andrew Sullivan'; 'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
>
>
> We are looking into Sun V210 (2 x 1 GHz cpu, 2 gig ram, 5.8Os) vs. Dell 1750
> (2 x 2.4 GHz xeon, 2 gig ram, RH3.0). database will mostly be
> write intensive and disks will be on raid 10. Wondering if 64bit 1 GHz to
> 32bit 2.4 GHz make a big difference here.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-performance-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Andrew
> Sullivan
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: 'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
>
>
> 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(at)crankycanuck(dot)ca
> The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the
> marketplace.
> 		--Philip Greenspun
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
>     (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
>       joining column's datatypes do not match
>



In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Anjan DaveDate: 2004-03-23 18:53:48
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux
Previous:From: Woody WoodringDate: 2004-03-23 18:49:07
Subject: Help with query plan inconsistencies

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group