Trevor Talbot wrote: > On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 04:00:04AM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: >>> On 11/12/07, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Sat, Nov 10, 2007 at 03:17:13PM -0800, Trevor Talbot wrote: >>>>> As for desktop heap, only 65KB of the service heap was allocated, or >>>>> about 80 bytes per connection. No danger of hitting limits in the >>>>> kernel memory pools either. >>>> As Dave said, it could be that the server version uses a lot less heap per >>>> process, which would be another good reason to use server rather than XP to >>>> run postgresql. But might there also be other differences, such as some >>>> third party (or non-core microsoft) product installed? >>> The XP SP2 machine I tried 8.2.5 on was chewing up about 3.1KB per >>> process, and it's not running anything invasive (AV or otherwise). >> Then I think we can claim that Server is just better than Workstation in >> this regard. Maybe we should put that in the FAQ? > > I think it's safe to claim 2003 is better than XP, but I'm not sure > that's enough to generalize into server vs workstation yet. It > implies 2000 Server would be better than 2000 Pro, which might not be > true. I'm also wondering whether 64bit XP behaves differently, since > IIRC it's based on the 2003 kernel. Then there's Vista...
Valid points, of course. Specifically, it'd be interesting to know where Vista stands, and possibly 2008 server. I don't care that much about 2000, really. I don't have installations of either one, though.. :-( //Magnus ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
