PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

[Jim Strickland]

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

[Jeff Bohmer]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X


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.postgr esql.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


[color=blue]
>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[/color]


--

Jeff Bohmer
VisionLink, Inc.
_______________ _______________ ___
303.402.0170 x121

http://www.visionlink.org/

_______________ _______________ ___
People. Tools. Change. Community.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

[Jeff Bohmer]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X


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.postgr esql.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


[color=blue]
>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[/color]


--

Jeff Bohmer
VisionLink, Inc.
_______________ _______________ ___
303.402.0170 x121

http://www.visionlink.org/

_______________ _______________ ___
People. Tools. Change. Community.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

[Jim Strickland]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

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?

Jeff Bohmer wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> 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.postgr esql.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
>
>
>[color=green]
>> 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[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

--
James Strickland - MCP
IT Manager
American Roamer
901-377-8585

http://www.americanroamer.com

---------------------------(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

[Jim Strickland]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

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?

Jeff Bohmer wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> 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.postgr esql.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
>
>
>[color=green]
>> 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[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

--
James Strickland - MCP
IT Manager
American Roamer
901-377-8585

http://www.americanroamer.com

---------------------------(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

[Jeff Bohmer]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

>I noticed you ran PostgreSQL on a G4. What version of OS X were you[color=blue]
>running? Is it possible the issues you were facing were fixed with
>the newer G5 processor?[/color]

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

[color=blue]
>Jeff Bohmer wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>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.postgr esql.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
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>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
>>>recommendi ng 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[/color][/color][/color]

--

Jeff Bohmer
VisionLink, Inc.
_______________ _______________ ___
303.402.0170 x121

http://www.visionlink.org/

_______________ _______________ ___
People. Tools. Change. Community.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[Jeff Bohmer]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

>I noticed you ran PostgreSQL on a G4. What version of OS X were you[color=blue]
>running? Is it possible the issues you were facing were fixed with
>the newer G5 processor?[/color]

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

[color=blue]
>Jeff Bohmer wrote:
>[color=green]
>>
>>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.postgr esql.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
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>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
>>>recommendi ng 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[/color][/color][/color]

--

Jeff Bohmer
VisionLink, Inc.
_______________ _______________ ___
303.402.0170 x121

http://www.visionlink.org/

_______________ _______________ ___
People. Tools. Change. Community.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[Jim Strickland]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

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:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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?[/color]
>
>
> 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
>
>[color=green]
>> Jeff Bohmer wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> 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.postgr esql.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
>>>[/color][/color]
>[/color]

--
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@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[Jim Strickland]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

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:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> 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?[/color]
>
>
> 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
>
>[color=green]
>> Jeff Bohmer wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>
>>> 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.postgr esql.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
>>>[/color][/color]
>[/color]

--
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@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[Kevin Murphy]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Jeff Bohmer wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

Did you (or anyone) ever compare performance of PostgreSQL under PPC
Linux running on the G4 or G5?

-Kevin Murphy


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[Kevin Murphy]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:33 PM, Jeff Bohmer wrote:[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

Did you (or anyone) ever compare performance of PostgreSQL under PPC
Linux running on the G4 or G5?

-Kevin Murphy


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

[Kevin Barnard]

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@americanr oamer.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> 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:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> 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?[/color]
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> 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.postgr esql.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
> >>>[/color]
> >[/color]
>
> --
> 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@postg resql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>[/color]

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postg resql.org

[Kevin Barnard]

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@americanr oamer.com> wrote:[color=blue]
> 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:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> 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?[/color]
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >> 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.postgr esql.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
> >>>[/color]
> >[/color]
>
> --
> 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@postg resql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>[/color]

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postg resql.org

[Jim Crate]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

on 11/3/04, Jeff Bohmer <bohmer@visionl ink.org> wrote:
[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

In my experience, a G4/1.25GHz computer with standard apple drive was much
faster than the PC (Pentium 2+GHz, don't remember details) we tested running
Linux. Both machines had plenty of RAM, same PostgreSQL settings, etc. The PC
was much slower than the mac running backup/restore (more than 2x slower). The
queries we tested were slower as well. Both machines had IDE drives. I'd think
the Linux box could probably be made to be faster, but it had a long way togo
to even match the G4.

We have had excellent stability on both G4 and G5, MacOS 10.2.x and 10.3.x,
PostgreSQL 7.3.x and 7.4.x. The only time we experienced instability was just
after the G5 was released, the combination of G5, MacOS 10.2.7 and PostgreSQL
7.3.x just didn't work very well. Upgrading the G5 to MacOS 10.3.x and
PostgreSQL 7.4.x brought back the stability we expected and we haven't really
had any problems since.

[color=blue]
>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.[/color]

Any specific examples? Apache 2.x with PHP 4.3.x has been running well on
various single and dual-cpu MacOS X boxes here.

--
Jim Crate
Deep Sky Technologies, Inc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddres sHere" to majordomo@postg resql.org)

[Jeff Bohmer]

Re: PostgreSQL on Linux PC vs MacOS X

>In my experience, a G4/1.25GHz computer with standard apple drive was much[color=blue]
>faster than the PC (Pentium 2+GHz, don't remember details) we tested running
>Linux. Both machines had plenty of RAM, same PostgreSQL settings,
>etc. The PC
>was much slower than the mac running backup/restore (more than 2x
>slower). The
>queries we tested were slower as well. Both machines had IDE
>drives. I'd think
>the Linux box could probably be made to be faster, but it had a long way to go
>to even match the G4.[/color]

One possible explanation for your results would be that the Mac IDE
drive lies about write completion while the PC IDE drive does not.
You mention a backup/restore test, which is very write-intensive.
Any system with an IDE drive that lies about write completion is
going to blow away (write performance-wise) a system with an IDE
drive that does not lie about it. Our tests last year were all with
SELECT queries to prevent this factor from skewing our results. (Our
app is read-heavy and we knew we would be getting a good hardware
RAID setup that could handle the writes.)

I do not have the same Apple hardware from a year ago to reproduce my
tests. If I get time in the next week, I can try something on the
same PC (RedHat 9, P3/800) vs. a G4/933, OS X Server 10.2.

[color=blue]
>We have had excellent stability on both G4 and G5, MacOS 10.2.x and 10.3.x,
>PostgreSQL 7.3.x and 7.4.x. The only time we experienced instability was just
>after the G5 was released, the combination of G5, MacOS 10.2.7 and PostgreSQL
>7.3.x just didn't work very well. Upgrading the G5 to MacOS 10.3.x and
>PostgreSQL 7.4.x brought back the stability we expected and we haven't really
>had any problems since.[/color]

Our primary OS X 10.2 server crashed very frequently. Sometimes more
than once per day. We changed machines and the crashes continued.
Apple HW test on both boxes showed no problems. The vast majority of
these crashes were under moderate load (~120 queries/min). A few
times, reindexing would cause a crash without any other DB activity.
With almost all of these crashes, there were no CrashReporter log
entries. At that point, we felt like we had no recourse but to try
something different (Linux/x86) and haven't looked back.

- Jeff

--

Jeff Bohmer
VisionLink, Inc.
_______________ _______________ ___
303.402.0170 x121

http://www.visionlink.org/

_______________ _______________ ___
People. Tools. Change. Community.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postg resql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly