| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joshua Berry <yoberi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | John Gage <jsmgage(at)numericable(dot)fr>, pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Running Windows on a Mac partition |
| Date: | 2010-03-31 14:40:51 |
| Message-ID: | 4BB35EF3.4020806@postnewspapers.com.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 31/03/2010 10:27 PM, Joshua Berry wrote:
> My vote would be to follow Craig Ringer's advice to run the pg server in
> a virtual machine. I'd choose something like vmware/fusion or if you
> want license free options, I think they exist that can run hosts on
> win32 and BSD/MacOS.
>
> But if you wanted to avoid dual booting altogether and
> parallels/fusion/whatever can run you win32 apps well enough, I'd run
> the server on the Mac side and let the win apps connect to it via the
> virtual network adapters. This is how I've run things on my Mac with
> decent results.
Yeah. Not having Pg in a VM is better, given the choice. It's hard to
say how trustworthy fsync() behaviour on various VMs is, for one thing.
I'd still use a VM over ntfs-on-mac or hfs+-on-windows, but running it
natively and using it over tcp/ip is always going to be preferable if
you can.
--
Craig Ringer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Albe Laurenz | 2010-03-31 14:44:40 | Re: Res: COPY ERROR |
| Previous Message | Joshua Berry | 2010-03-31 14:27:33 | Re: Running Windows on a Mac partition |