Re: scalability issues on win32

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 23 November 2004 15:06
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Merlin Moncure; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org;
> PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] scalability issues on win32
>
> The general opinion of server users is that you need 2-4 more
> Win32 servers to do the same work as one Unix-like server.
> That and the difficulty of automated administration and
> security problems is what is preventing Win32 from making
> greater inroads into the server marketplace.
>
> Of course these are just generalizations.

I'd rather avoid an OS advocacy war here, but if I'm honest, with group
policy and other tools such as SUS, I find that my Windows servers are
actually easier to administer than the Linux ones (I have about a 50-50
mix at work). Perhaps that's because I favour Slackware though?

As for the 2-4 servers quote, I find that a little on the high side. I
agree that generally you might expect a little more performance from an
equivalent Linux system on the same hardware, but in my practical
experience the difference is far less than you suggest.

Regards, Dave.

Dave Page wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us]
> > Sent: 23 November 2004 15:06
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Merlin Moncure; pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org;
> > PostgreSQL Win32 port list
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] scalability issues on win32
> >
> > The general opinion of server users is that you need 2-4 more
> > Win32 servers to do the same work as one Unix-like server.
> > That and the difficulty of automated administration and
> > security problems is what is preventing Win32 from making
> > greater inroads into the server marketplace.
> >
> > Of course these are just generalizations.
>
> I'd rather avoid an OS advocacy war here, but if I'm honest, with group
> policy and other tools such as SUS, I find that my Windows servers are
> actually easier to administer than the Linux ones (I have about a 50-50
> mix at work). Perhaps that's because I favour Slackware though?
>
> As for the 2-4 servers quote, I find that a little on the high side. I
> agree that generally you might expect a little more performance from an
> equivalent Linux system on the same hardware, but in my practical
> experience the difference is far less than you suggest.

I have never run the tests myself. I am just quoting what I have heard,
and maybe that information is a few years old.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073