My guess is that you will get better performance from a similarly priced
Dual Opteron for the following reasons:
1) OS-X is not 64-bit yet, 64-bit Linux/BSD OS's are available
2) GCC is far better tuned for x86 than PowerPC/Itanium/etc
3) Postgres *seems* to prefer Opteron's ondie memory
I've been working with PostgreSQL on OS X (G4, G5 and dual G5 systems)
for a few months now, and overall I've been really pleased; for us, it
seems to be a good match.
If you have both an OS X and a Linux or BSD system available, you could
run pgbench against both and get a rough idea on how
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
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
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:
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
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?
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
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
On Nov 3, 2004, at 1:33 PM, 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.
Did you (or
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
on 11/3/04, Jeff Bohmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
