You'll almost certainly want to use NTFS.
I suspect you'll want to set the NTFS Allocation Unit Size to 8192 or
some integer multiple of 8192, since I believe that is the pg page
size. XP format dialog will not allow you to set it above 4096, but
the command line format utility will. I do remember
2009/4/13 Ognjen Blagojevic :
> It is a student database for the college which is a client of ours. The size
> of the database should be around 1GB, half being binary data (images). Not
> more than 100 users at the time will be working with the application.
nice, if you want to store pics, I sugge
2009/4/13 Ognjen Blagojevic :
> Hi all,
>
> First, thank you all for your answers.
>
>
> Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>>
>> Give it a try, and please tell us what sort of application you want to
>> put on it.
>
> It is a student database for the college which is a client of ours. The size
> of the da
Hi all,
First, thank you all for your answers.
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
Give it a try, and please tell us what sort of application you want to
put on it.
It is a student database for the college which is a client of ours. The
size of the database should be around 1GB, half being binary da
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Rainer Mager wrote:
> We're running 8.3, but when we started this server about 2 years ago it was
> an earlier 8.x, I don't remember which.
Cool. PostgreSQL is one of the few projects where I've always
recommended upgrading and keeping on the latest major version
lowe
> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 8:41 AM
> To: Rainer Mager
> Cc: Ognjen Blagojevic; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres 8.x on Windows Server in production
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Rainer Mager
> wrote:
> > We use Postgres 8.x
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Rainer Mager wrote:
> We use Postgres 8.x in production on Windows Server 2003. We have not done a
> direct head-to-head comparison against any *nix environment, so I can't
> really compare them, but I can still give a few comments.
Just wondering, what version ar
difficulties with it.
--Rainer
> -Original Message-
> From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
> ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ognjen Blagojevic
> Sent: Friday, April 10, 2009 6:47 PM
> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
> Subject: [P
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:07 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Yet 1000's of users are running PostgreSQL on Windows in production. It
> really depends on what kind of application you're running, and what its
> demands are. For a CMS or a contact manager or a personnel directory? No
> problem. For a cen
Ognjen,
What are your experiences with Postgres 8.x in production use on Windows
Server 2003/2008? Are there any limitations, trade-offs or quirks?
First of all, you need to know that the first *two* digits of a
PostgreSQL version are major version numbers. So 8.3 is not the same
Postgres w
Hi all,
What are your experiences with Postgres 8.x in production use on Windows
Server 2003/2008? Are there any limitations, trade-offs or quirks?
My client is accustomed to Windows Server environment, but it seems hard
to google good information about these types of installations.
Regards
11 matches
Mail list logo
