Ulas Albayrak wrote:
Unfortunately, the switch to Windows is out of my hands. If it were up
to me I'd stick with BSD. When you say postgres on Windows is known
for its "mediocre performance", do you mean it's slower or buggy? Or
both?
Three examples that have varying proportions of slow and buggy in them:
-Without risky registry hacking, Windows systems won't allow more than
about 125 connections to the server at a time if you're using the
standard service infrastructure to manage the server. See the last
entry at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Running_%26_Installing_PostgreSQL_On_Native_Windows
for details. If you need more clients than that connecting to the
database, you'll need to either tweak the registry, run it outside of
the services model, or put a connection pooler between the clients and
the database.
-UNIX systems normally allow giving the database up to several gigabytes
of RAM for its direct utilization. Windows installs have to be kept in
the 128MB - 512MB range because they get unexpectedly slower when the
database has more memory than that.
-Anti-virus software installed on Windows servers has to be very
carefully screened for compatibility with the database, with really
random sorts of problems popping up when you have a bad combination.
Any time you let your AV software get updated, you're potentially
exposed to the database becoming unreliable afterwards.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.2ndQuadrant.us
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
