PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Preferences

· nixdoc.net

· man pages

· Linux HOWTOs

· FreeBSD Tips

· Forums

Forum index » Databases » PostgreSQL

PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Page 5 of 5 [65 Posts]

View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Author

Message

Bruce Momjian
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 02 Mar 2005
Posts: 287

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:15 pm Post subject: Note

Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Richard Huxton wrote:

Quote:

2. This response is alarming: Tom Lane wrote in digest V1.5092:

We are supporting Windows as a Postgres platform for the benefit of
developers who want to do testing on their laptops (and for reasons
best known to themselves feel a need to run >Windows on their
laptops).

a. Who are the 'we' Tom is talking about?

In an email in the public lists we = Tom

b. Is he speaking for
PostgreSQL Developers and the entire PostgreSQL community?

Official pronouncements from "core" will be marked as such. No-one
speaks for the "entire" PostgreSQL community. You're part of that
community, just by virtue of downloading a copy and subscribing to the
lists.

As a core member I can confirm that "we = Tom" in this context. The
core group has made no decisions about the relative stability of Win32
vs Unix, and is unlikely to in the future.

The decision about operating system and stability are to be made by
end-users based on their experience. We do our best to make all
platforms as well supported as possible.

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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

tony
*nix forums addict

Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 81

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:19 pm Post subject: Note

Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 16:51 +0100, Magnus Hagander a écrit :

Quote:

Putting Windows NT inside a virtual machine (VMware workstation) solved
all hardware stability problems in my case. NT would only crash if we
forgot to reboot every 45 days or so... The Linux host had a 9 month
uptime at one point.

If you could be more explicit as to why VMware client does not write to
disk I would much appreciate. I was thinking of virtualising a couple of
servers (Linux client on Linux host). TIA

Tony Grant

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)

Magnus Hagander
*nix forums Guru Wannabe

Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 158

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: Note

Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Quote:

Do *not* do this with a production database.

Vmware does *not* correctly handle fsync()s (or O_SYNC or any of
those) thruogh to disk. If your host PC crashes, your database will
almost certainly be corrupted. fsync() on the client just
puts it in
the RAM cache on the host. Not even in the write cache on
the disk/raid.

Putting Windows NT inside a virtual machine (VMware
workstation) solved all hardware stability problems in my
case. NT would only crash if we forgot to reboot every 45
days or so... The Linux host had a 9 month uptime at one point.

If you could be more explicit as to why VMware client does
not write to disk I would much appreciate. I was thinking of
virtualising a couple of servers (Linux client on Linux host). TIA

PostgreSQL relies on fsync() putting your data all the way through to
the disc. It must *not* stay in cache memory, because then you can lose
transactions. If write ordering is also lost (which is likely in this
case), you can get a corrupt database.

In the tests I've been running on vmware, a fsync() in the guest OS will
flush it out of the guest OSs buffer, but the data will stay in the host
OS buffers.

This means that you may be hosed if your host OS crashes. It should
survive a *guest* OS crash without problems.

I haven't had any actual crashes on this, but there is plenty of
evidence that syncing doesn't go all the way through (see my other mail)
at least with Windows as the host OS. Which means you are basically
running with write-cache enabled all the time with no way to turn it
off, and some reading of the pg lists should tell you how bad that is.

It's possible this works fine if you use direct disk access in vmware
(giving the session a native disk to access), but I haven't tried that.

After some looking around (and with some hints from Dave Page) for my
own needs of virtualising linux-on-linux, I've moved to linux-vservers.
While it doesn't virtualise everything, it's good enough for me. I
suggest you at least look at it before going down the vmware path - it's
also free software unlike vmware.

//Magnus

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

tony
*nix forums addict

Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 81

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 3:53 pm Post subject: Note

Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Le vendredi 11 mars 2005 à 17:41 +0100, Magnus Hagander a écrit :

Quote:

OK! I understand your worries now. I always do this because initial
reading through the different disk modes when 3.0 came out made my hair
stand on end. The speed and size of disks today means that each virtual
machine can treat a part of the disk as its own as far as I'm concerned.
The other disk modes always seemed strange to me - maybe they have uses
for others... When I am in my virtual machine I like to see the HD diode
go on each time I do a save, improves my tan =:-D

Quote:

After some looking around (and with some hints from Dave Page) for my
own needs of virtualising linux-on-linux, I've moved to linux-vservers.
While it doesn't virtualise everything, it's good enough for me. I
suggest you at least look at it before going down the vmware path - it's
also free software unlike vmware.

Looked at that. It requires heavy guru voodoo magic at host OS install
time. VMware (I already own the licence I was going to use) can be
installed on a machine that is up and running.

Thanks

Tony

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Chris Travers
*nix forums addict

Joined: 08 Mar 2005
Posts: 96

Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:11 pm Post subject: Note

Re: PostgreSQL still for Linux only?

Tope Akinniyi wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

In my country Nigeria (and even African continent), we do not eat what
the western world eat. We wear different styles of cloths. In the same
vein, our computerisation culture is different.

Having lived in Indonesia, I can sympathize with your situation. It is
not just Africa, but most of the developing world.

Quote:

I must submit that computers became popular in Nigeria by Windows
desktop system. While the western world were exposed to *NIX from the
beginning, we were introduced to computing via DOS and later Windows.
That is our IT antecedent and culture. People use database engines
such as Oracle, Firebird, Sybase, mySQL, etc on Windows here and they
manage them and survive. If because you want to recommend PostgreSQL,
you insist on Non-Windows OS, the first question clients ask you is
why is your own different? Why must I switch from Windows to *NIX
because of your PostgreSQL? You might end up not succeeding in that
bid. And we are used to the blue screen (crashes) and each IT house in
Nigeria has gone the extra mile to ensure the safety of the operations
of its clients. Everyone is a product of his environment,
peculiarities and experiences.

If you want a reasonable open source RDBMS for production use on
Wondows, I would suggest that you use Firebird. However if Windows is
not the selling point, consider the following:

1) You may be able to get extra use out of older systems by installing
Linux and PostgreSQL. This may perform better than Windows and Firebird
as long as you don't need a GUI. This may be more reliable than Windows
especially if you can't afford high-end hardware (ECC RAM, SCSI drives,
etc) for your production servers anyway.

2) The PL's available for PostgreSQL add a lot of flexability.

Quote:

As an IT organisation that wants to stay in business you need to give
to people what they wants. I think that is the basis of service. I
have some deployments of PostgreSQL on Windows servers. I must admit
that we have not had any problems so far.

The glory of open source is that people will do what they want with
it. PostgreSQL for Windows is not really something I would run a large
production database on at the moment. However, open source tools tend
to develop in strange ways. I am sure that as PostgreSQL on Windows
becomes more popular, the issues will get worked out as much as possible.

Quote:

Notwithstanding, due efforts must be made to protect your clients'
operations whether you use Windows or Posix. In that regards, I
thought of reducing the risk factor by implementing replication on
some of the servers.

Command Prompt's solution works on Windows. Slony will require some
porting, but if this is important, you can hire a programmer to help
with the porting Smile

Otherwise you can wait for someone else to do it.

Quote:

I sought Windows replication tool for and could not get. I checked
PgFoundry and the one there put a banner and said NOT FOR WINDOWS.
Then I said is this PostgreSQL for Windows a joke? That prompted
my post - IS POSTGRESQL FOR LINUX ONLY?

Check the archives about Slony-I and Windows. Maybe ask the developers
how much work it would be to port it. If labor is inexpensive in
Nigeria, maybe you can hire a programmer to do it.

Quote:

Now, as the CEO of an IT organisation, I want to draft my final
blueprint on PostgreSQL. I need your advice on this.

1. If I can manage it, can I continue to use PostgreSQL on Windows and
watch as it evolves? I recognise the points certain respondents made
on earlier; which was PostgreSQL on Windows is still a baby boy, do
not expect it to walk like a man or expect it to possess the features
of a man.

Ok, maybe others can provide more refined estimates, but....

I expect that it will be 1-2 years before PostgreSQL on Windows is
mature enough for higher-load purposes. You can however help by using
it, and communicating your experiences with programmers. If this is not
enough, you can even pay someone to fix things for you. These are
selling points of open source software.

Quote:

As much as I don't like to speak for others, I read this as saying
something like:

"We (the core developers) began work on the Windows port because we
wanted to support developers running PostgreSQL on their systems."

Quote:

c. Does this mean that PostgreSQL for Windows is just a toy or model -
Oh do not take it serious? Or is the Windows version by design a
miniature of the *NIX version, lacking the requisite mechanism of a
reliable database?

I think the core team takes all aspects of PostgreSQL very seriously.
Part of the problem is that they are so serious about it that they don't
want problems in Windows to smear the name of PostgreSQL. So comments
like Windows being unsuitable for any RDBMS use applies to MS SQL and
Firebird as PostgreSQL. But that doesn't mean that people won't do the
best that they can to make it work.

Quote:

d. And does that mean the developers can decide to withdraw
development and support for the Windows version anytime they so wish?

Individual developers can decide whatever they want. However, as long
as Windows/PostgreSQL is popular, it will be supported regardless of
whatever the core team wants to do. This is because the community has
access to the source code and that the community will include a large
number of software developers. But no, I don't see the core team
deciding to remove supported platforms any time soon. We are not a
centralized commercial enterprise like MySQL, so whatever the community
really wants, they will eventually get.

Quote:

I am not against Linux or any Posix for any reason. In fact one of my
two office servers run Mandrake Linux. But I am grateful that
PostgreSQL recognises the fact that we all can and will not be in the
same boat. So it is good to support many boats.

Tom lane's post is worrisome to me. It bothers on consistency. Would
PostgreSQL be consistent for Windows? If not, I think at this stage I
can easily roll back and migrate my clients back to other Windows
Database system where I feel I will be secured for some time to come
as using PostgreSQL does not affect much of my operations. I am just
expanding my varieties.

Why should it matter? What will happen is that PostgreSQL on Windows
will become commonly used in both development and production
environments. It won't be fast like on Linux because of fork() overhead
but it will be supported as long as the community wants it.

Quote:

I think managing PostgreSQL on OS I desire should be my own duty. The
point is that PostgreSQL can be available for what I choose to use it
for and where I choose to use it. Managing failure points of my OS
should be left to my technical expertise. Well if I can get some
support from some sources, fine.

I do not seem to be comfortable with this "Windows will spoil
PostgreSQL reputation position" as posted by Schroeder. Is PostgreSQL
the only database engine running on Windows? There are million of
licences of Oracle, mySQL, Sybase, etc for Windows servers. The
company that uses them are up and running; not as if only
organisations running DB on Posix are existing. Who blames mySQL or
Oracle when it crashes on Windows OS? If PostgreSQL cannot thrive
where others thrive, it will be quite unfortunate. You cannot shut
yourself indoors because you anticipate a rainfall (that might not
come). What would be the empirical basis for our judgement if
PostgreSQL is not used on Windows? Crashing MS Office on Windows is a
different situation from what you would get running PostgreSQL. I do
often witness many utility *NIX applications do crash on our Mandrake
server, but not PostgreSQL crashing.

As I said, the core team takes the security of your data very
seriously. Note that this does not mean that it will nto be supported,
but just that people don't think you should consider doing this.

Quote:

I hope this response is helpful.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

Google

Display posts from previous:

Page 5 of 5 [65 Posts]

Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
View previous topic :: View next topic

The time now is Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:54 am | All times are GMT

Forum index » Databases » PostgreSQL

Jump to:

Topic		Author	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Similar Topics
	Help required for configuring the VPN Server in Linux	SHERDIL	security	0	Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:22 pm
	2 USB webcams on Linux 2.6.15.4 produce a hang	Suyog	hardware	1	Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:27 am
	Is there C/C++ corresponding function in Linux for Java's...	xiebopublic@gmail.com	apps	4	Fri Jul 21, 2006 3:22 am
	Is there C/C++ corresponding function in Linux for Java's...	xiebopublic@gmail.com	C++	1	Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:44 am
	Why Redhat Linux has no RPM for PHP 5?!	RC	PHP	3	Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:20 pm

Debt Consolidation | Loans | Live mortgage rates | Bankruptcy | Loans

Other DeniX Solutions sites: Unix/Linux blog | electronics forum | medicine forum | science forum |

[ Time: 0.3768s ][ Queries: 16 (0.2435s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]