Tuning for PostGreSQL Database
tom at sdf.com
Sun Jul 20 16:45:58 PDT 2003
On Sun, 20 Jul 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > > FreeBSD 4.8 or 5.1?
> > >
> > > Probably 5.1-RELEASE.
> > I would recommend 4.8 over 5.1. Especially if you intend this to be
> > a production server. 5.1 is not ready for public consumption.
> Public consumption, yes. Production consumption, no.
> 5.1 is still pretty crippled in its current state because it's not
> Giant free yet. Once Giant free, however, 5.X will be much closer to
> production ready and should be quicker as a result of the fine grained
> locking (or so everyone hopes). The simple locking mechanism in 4.x
Well, 5.1 is considerably less crippled by Giant than 4.8. Well,
"crippled" is not a good description. "Impaired" is better. 5.1 SMP
performance is less Giant impaired than 4.8. That's a good thing.
> does have some advantages in cases and should be a consistent
> performer on UP machines and under most loads.... whether or not 5.x
Giant is not present in a UP kernel.
At the rate things are going, in a couple of years, most people are
going to using SMP, so UP is going to be less of an issue.
> over takes 4.X in terms of speed, is the subject of great debate, but
> many are optimistic that it will be at some point, just not at the
> moment. 5.X, will however (and without much doubt), scale much better
> than 4.X on multiple processor machines, though I'm not sure where
> that stands at the moment in terms of being completed and should
> likely be directed to current@ or questions@ instead of here. -sc
Yes, 5.1 is better on multiple CPUs. So if 5.1 works for you, it is
going to work faster than 4.8 on SMP.
> Sean Chittenden
More information about the freebsd-performance