On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 11:06:03AM -0400, Carlo Stonebanks wrote: > Unfortunately, LINUX is not an option at this time. We looked into it; there > is no *NIX expertise in the enterprise. However, I have raised this issue in > various forums before, and when pressed no one was willing to say that "*NIX > *DEFINITELY* outperforms Windows" for what my client is doing (or if it did > outperform Windows, that it would outperform so significantly that it > merited the move). > > Was this incorrect? Can my client DEFINITELY expect a significant > improvement in performance for what he is doing? Since we don't know your actual workload, there's no way to predict this. That's what benchmarking is for. If you haven't already bought the hardware, I'd strongly recommend benchmarking this before buying anything, so that you have a better idea of what your workload looks like. Is it I/O-bound? CPU-bound? Memory? One of the fastest ways to non-performance in PostgreSQL is not vacuuming frequently enough. Vacuum more, not less, and control IO impact via vacuum_cost_delay. Make sure the FSM is big enough, too. Unless your database is small enough to fit in-memory, your IO subsystem is almost certainly going to kill you. Even if it does fit in memory, if you're doing much writing at all you're going to be in big trouble. -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Attachment:
pgpumVVbqxXVA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
