Re: FW: Postgres alongside MS SQL Server
On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 09:40:55PM -0600, Anony Mous wrote:
Hi,
We've got some clients that are concerned about running Postgresql 7.3.4 on
a Win2k Server box, alongside MS SQL Server. I've been running pg on my XP
machines for a long time now (with cygwin) and never had any sort of
problem. The db is fast and stable.Does anyone have any experience that would give some weight to our client's
concerns? Would there be any potential conflict between the postmaster and
MS SQL Server? Your experience and advice would be greatly appreciated.
No, but it's irrelevant. Your clients are idiots who think they know
more about computers than you. You have three choices:
1. Use this as an opportunity to introduce them to low-cost,
highly-functional free Unix systems, i.e. Linux or BSD. They'll thank
you later.
2. Have "the talk" with them. I've done this twice in the last 10
years. Sit them down in a meeting, and simply ask "If you know more
about this than me, then it doesn't make sense that you're paying me
$100/hour to tell you stuff, does it? Do you give your attorney legal
advice, too?" Depends on the client, worked fine for me and in both cases the
clients started treating me very differently after that. I cannot imagine
giving my attorney legal advice, I have no idea why people see this
differently.
3. Convince them that it'll be okay. This is the last piece of advice
because it is the worst. Any time anything goes wrong with the machine
your postgres installation will be the culprit. And stuff will go wrong
daily, if you know what I mean.
It's a difficult situation when you have such clients, but use it as an
opportunity to learn more about doing business.
Michael
--
Michael Darrin Chaney
mdchaney@michaelchaney.com
http://www.michaelchaney.com/
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 00fa01c428e4$c917ef20$7402a8c0@PETERReference msg id not found: 00fa01c428e4$c917ef20$7402a8c0@PETER
Hello,
Well it of course depends on what you are doing. Traditionally I would
say, "Are you nuts?" but it really depends
on what you are doing. It is all about risk... if PostgreSQL freaks out
and takes out the machine, what will happen
to the MS SQL server? What about cost associated with downtime?
The same goes for if the MS SQL server takes out the machine? How
important is what PostgreSQL is doing?
Considering you could put together a box that will outperform
PostgreSQL/Cgwin running Linux for about 700 bucks.
Why not just get a new machine and not risk the exposure?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Anony Mous wrote:
Hi,
We've got some clients that are concerned about running Postgresql 7.3.4 on
a Win2k Server box, alongside MS SQL Server. I've been running pg on my XP
machines for a long time now (with cygwin) and never had any sort of
problem. The db is fast and stable.Does anyone have any experience that would give some weight to our client's
concerns? Would there be any potential conflict between the postmaster and
MS SQL Server? Your experience and advice would be greatly appreciated.-Peter
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQLImport Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 00fa01c428e4$c917ef20$7402a8c0@PETERReference msg id not found: 00fa01c428e4$c917ef20$7402a8c0@PETER | Resolved by subject fallback
Server. I've heard that Postgresql is a task that runs with "Normal"
priority, and can therefore not lock up the machine to the point where it's
not recoverable. In contrast, I've heard as well that MS SQL Server does
indeed run as a high priority task and will take precedence when the OS
doles out CPU resources.How is it possible for Postgresql to "freak out" and take out the machine?
It is not that it would (I haven't had it happen) but it could. I am
speaking more from a business liability
standpoint than a technical capability standpoint.
One would not typically in a production environment put to RDMS on the
same machine. Your management's
fears are well founded in general. They have nothing to do with
PostgreSQL as much as much as they have
to do with the fact that you are:
A. Running Win2000? Which although reasonably stable doesn't scale well.
B. Running MS SQL which is known to be a resource hog.
C. Considering putting PostgreSQL with an emulated environment on top of
it all.
My response would be the same if the question would about MySQL or
Firebird. It just eeks to bad mojo.
Think about the diagnosing problems!
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Replies are greatly appreciated.
-Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
Sent: April 22, 2004 10:09 AM
To: Anony Mous
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] FW: Postgres alongside MS SQL ServerHello,
Well it of course depends on what you are doing. Traditionally I would
say, "Are you nuts?" but it really depends
on what you are doing. It is all about risk... if PostgreSQL freaks out
and takes out the machine, what will happen
to the MS SQL server? What about cost associated with downtime?The same goes for if the MS SQL server takes out the machine? How
important is what PostgreSQL is doing?Considering you could put together a box that will outperform
PostgreSQL/Cgwin running Linux for about 700 bucks.
Why not just get a new machine and not risk the exposure?Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Anony Mous wrote:
Hi,
We've got some clients that are concerned about running Postgresql 7.3.4 on
a Win2k Server box, alongside MS SQL Server. I've been running pg on my XP
machines for a long time now (with cygwin) and never had any sort of
problem. The db is fast and stable.Does anyone have any experience that would give some weight to our client's
concerns? Would there be any potential conflict between the postmaster and
MS SQL Server? Your experience and advice would be greatly appreciated.-Peter
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQLImport Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 011301c42d3c$8a8c8890$7402a8c0@PETERReference msg id not found: 011301c42d3c$8a8c8890$7402a8c0@PETER | Resolved by subject fallback
At 10:19 AM 4/28/2004 -0600, Anony Mous wrote:
I'm not ruling out the idea of running with a separate linux box, but there
are some strong reasons to stick with the MS box. So, your point is well
taken.That aside, however, I still need to draw from various people's experience
to get a feel for any problems that may arise when running next to MS SQL
Server. I've heard that Postgresql is a task that runs with "Normal"
priority, and can therefore not lock up the machine to the point where it's
not recoverable. In contrast, I've heard as well that MS SQL Server does
indeed run as a high priority task and will take precedence when the OS
doles out CPU resources.How is it possible for Postgresql to "freak out" and take out the machine?
How easy/likely is it for a program run as a normal user to blue screen an
MS server?
How easy/likely is it for a program run as a normal user to do the equiv to
a FreeBSD/Linux server?
You can also effectively take out a machine by using too much memory and
going into swap death-spiral.
I'm not sure if it is easy to limit Postgresql memory usage "gracefully" on
an MS box. AFAIK you can do memory limits on Linux/Unix boxes.
MS built-in task manager doesn't let you kill all processes. You need 3rd
party tools to do the equiv of kill -9. But of course you shouldn't kill -9
postgresql. Which brings us to something I don't know the answer of -
what's the safe way of terminating postgresql on a MS server?
Regards,
Link.
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 011301c42d3c$8a8c8890$7402a8c0@PETER
Anony Mous <A.Mous@shaw.ca> writes:
How is it possible for Postgresql to "freak out" and take out the machine?
On real operating systems (e.g. Unixen) it can't, because it's an
unprivileged process. I wouldn't care to make a similar statement
about Windows though.
regards, tom lane
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 011301c42d3c$8a8c8890$7402a8c0@PETERReference msg id not found: 011301c42d3c$8a8c8890$7402a8c0@PETER | Resolved by subject fallback
Anony Mous <A.Mous@shaw.ca> writes:
The reality of my situation is that the MS SQL Server may only reside on the
same machine (Win2K server) until all data has been transferred from it to
postgres, and then for maybe a month after that. Beyond that, postgres will
be the only RDBMS on the box. It is for the transitional time where the
concerns were raised. I am stuck, however, to running on top of a Win OS at
the moment.
Hmm... I had taken your initial post to mean that you intended to run an
experimental Postgres server on the same box as your production server.
If you mean you intend to transition to using PG-on-Cygwin-on-Windows
as a production server, well, I don't think anyone around here will
recommend that as a good idea. That assemblage is not stable enough to
qualify as a production-grade database (bearing in mind that database
geeks have very high standards for "production grade" reliability).
You really ought to reconsider this.
In a year or three we may think that the currently-in-progress native
Windows port is stable enough to be used for production. But the
Cygwin port has never been intended as anything except a playpen for
application authors who wanted to write and test SQL code on their
Windows laptops.
regards, tom lane
Import Notes
Reply to msg id not found: 027501c42966$b0783f10$7402a8c0@PETERReference msg id not found: 027501c42966$b0783f10$7402a8c0@PETER | Resolved by subject fallback
Tom Lane wrote:
Anony Mous <A.Mous@shaw.ca> writes:
The reality of my situation is that the MS SQL Server may only reside on the
same machine (Win2K server) until all data has been transferred from it to
postgres, and then for maybe a month after that. Beyond that, postgres will
be the only RDBMS on the box. It is for the transitional time where the
concerns were raised. I am stuck, however, to running on top of a Win OS at
the moment.Hmm... I had taken your initial post to mean that you intended to run an
experimental Postgres server on the same box as your production server.
If you mean you intend to transition to using PG-on-Cygwin-on-Windows
as a production server, well, I don't think anyone around here will
recommend that as a good idea. That assemblage is not stable enough to
qualify as a production-grade database (bearing in mind that database
geeks have very high standards for "production grade" reliability).
You really ought to reconsider this.In a year or three we may think that the currently-in-progress native
Windows port is stable enough to be used for production. But the
Cygwin port has never been intended as anything except a playpen for
application authors who wanted to write and test SQL code on their
Windows laptops.
Though that is Tom's opinion, I think the community opinion is that
users should determine for themselves whether Cygwin or the upcoming
native Win32 port are ready for production use.
--
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
OK. Thanks to all who responded. Sounds like no foreseeable problems exist
when running Postgresql alongside another enterprise db on a win box. The
advice against doing that, however, is well taken and I appreciate it all.
The reality of my situation is that the MS SQL Server may only reside on the
same machine (Win2K server) until all data has been transferred from it to
postgres, and then for maybe a month after that. Beyond that, postgres will
be the only RDBMS on the box. It is for the transitional time where the
concerns were raised. I am stuck, however, to running on top of a Win OS at
the moment.
Cheers,
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
Sent: April 22, 2004 11:35 AM
To: Anony Mous
Cc: 'Joshua D. Drake'; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] FW: Postgres alongside MS SQL Server
Anony Mous <A.Mous@shaw.ca> writes:
How is it possible for Postgresql to "freak out" and take out the machine?
On real operating systems (e.g. Unixen) it can't, because it's an
unprivileged process. I wouldn't care to make a similar statement
about Windows though.
regards, tom lane
I'm not ruling out the idea of running with a separate linux box, but there
are some strong reasons to stick with the MS box. So, your point is well
taken.
That aside, however, I still need to draw from various people's experience
to get a feel for any problems that may arise when running next to MS SQL
Server. I've heard that Postgresql is a task that runs with "Normal"
priority, and can therefore not lock up the machine to the point where it's
not recoverable. In contrast, I've heard as well that MS SQL Server does
indeed run as a high priority task and will take precedence when the OS
doles out CPU resources.
How is it possible for Postgresql to "freak out" and take out the machine?
Replies are greatly appreciated.
-Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Joshua D. Drake [mailto:jd@commandprompt.com]
Sent: April 22, 2004 10:09 AM
To: Anony Mous
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] FW: Postgres alongside MS SQL Server
Hello,
Well it of course depends on what you are doing. Traditionally I would
say, "Are you nuts?" but it really depends
on what you are doing. It is all about risk... if PostgreSQL freaks out
and takes out the machine, what will happen
to the MS SQL server? What about cost associated with downtime?
The same goes for if the MS SQL server takes out the machine? How
important is what PostgreSQL is doing?
Considering you could put together a box that will outperform
PostgreSQL/Cgwin running Linux for about 700 bucks.
Why not just get a new machine and not risk the exposure?
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Anony Mous wrote:
Hi,
We've got some clients that are concerned about running Postgresql 7.3.4 on
a Win2k Server box, alongside MS SQL Server. I've been running pg on my XP
machines for a long time now (with cygwin) and never had any sort of
problem. The db is fast and stable.Does anyone have any experience that would give some weight to our client's
concerns? Would there be any potential conflict between the postmaster and
MS SQL Server? Your experience and advice would be greatly appreciated.-Peter
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL