Обсуждение: Running Windows on a Mac partition

I just wondered if I could access the same 8.4.2 server from the
Windows partition (XP via "Bootcamp") as I do from the Mac partition
on my Mac?

Thanks,

John

P.S.  In other words, do I have to duplicate everything on the two
"machines"?

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM, John Gage <jsmgage@numericable.fr> wrote:
> I just wondered if I could access the same 8.4.2 server from the Windows
> partition (XP via "Bootcamp") as I do from the Mac partition on my Mac?

Assuming both virtual machines (or the virtual machine and the host)
are up at the same time, it's more of a networking issue that anything
else.  As long as the pg_hba.conf and postgresql.conf files have
entries allowing outside machines to connect via TCP/IP you should be
able to just point your windows partition over to the IP of the Mac
partition and be set.

On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Joshua Berry <yoberi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM, John Gage <jsmgage@numericable.fr> wrote:
>> > I just wondered if I could access the same 8.4.2 server from the Windows
>> > partition (XP via "Bootcamp") as I do from the Mac partition on my Mac?
>>
>> Assuming both virtual machines (or the virtual machine and the host)
>> are up at the same time, it's more of a networking issue that anything
>> else.  As long as the pg_hba.conf and postgresql.conf files have
>> entries allowing outside machines to connect via TCP/IP you should be
>> able to just point your windows partition over to the IP of the Mac
>> partition and be set.
>
> I haven't used Bootcamp for a few years, but I believe that it is not
> platform for running concurrent virtual machines, but rather a method of
> "dual booting" Windows and Mac OS. Meaning, that either one or the other
> would be running at any given point of time.

The impression I was under was that both OSes were active and you just
flipped between the two with a sort of super alt-tab command.

>> a method of
>> "dual booting" Windows and Mac OS. Meaning, that either one or the
>> other
>> would be running at any given point of time.
>
> The impression I was under was that both OSes were active and you just
> flipped between the two with a sort of super alt-tab command.

In the case of Bootcamp, only one OS is in operation at the same time
(there are other solutions, Parallels is one, that run simultaneously,
but they are not as fast).

However, each OS, while it is running has access to the other's file
system, though these file systems are different to some extent (which
is configurable).

John Gage wrote:
> I just wondered if I could access the same 8.4.2 server from the Windows
> partition (XP via "Bootcamp") as I do from the Mac partition on my Mac?

If I understand correctly, Boot Camp doesn't permit both Mac OS X and
Windows to run at the same time, right? You can run one or the other,
and to switch you must reboot?

If that's the case, then you can't run one server instance and share it
via the network between the two "personalities".

You *might* be able to share the data directory if the Mac OS X system
can read/write the Windows NTFS partition or vice versa. This is
probably risky, as I wouldn't trust Mac OS X's NTFS support to be safe
to run a database on, nor any Apple-provided HFS+ driver for XP to be
safe for that purpose. I wouldn't run Pg on FAT32 either.

Personally, what I'd do would be create a virtual machine image with
something like VMWare - something that is supported on both Mac OS X and
on Windows. Put it somewhere both systems can access it - probably the
Windows NTFS partition. Then, whichever OS you're using, start the
virtual machine with Pg on it and use that server over the virtual
network between the VM and the real host.

Alternately, you could just point Pg at a data-dir on storage that both
systems can access, as described earlier. I'd be pretty wary of doing
this, though.

--
Craig Ringer

Unfortunately, but no unexpectedly, I have been moderately stupid in
this question.

Using Bootcamp, the OS's are *not* running simultaneously.  Hence, the
server, which is on the Mac is not running when Win is running.  There
is the possibility for the Mac to *read* files in Win, but that is as
far as the cross-talk goes.  Win does not know that Mac exists.

That is Bootcamp.

There are other solutions, Parallels is one, that permit Win and Mac
to run simultaneously.  Win in that case is a virtual machine.  In
that case the two "OS's" talk to each other.  But it is still a cludgy
environment, and I don't want to spend the money on another Win OEM OS.

Sorry to have not really done my homework on this question, and thank
you for your suggestions.  Clearly, TCP/IP would work...if the Mac
were running at the same time.

As a footnote, given the entirely different virus susceptibilities of
the two systems, it is probably better to run a separate server and
data file(s) on each machine.

John


On Mar 30, 2010, at 11:46 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 1:57 PM, John Gage <jsmgage@numericable.fr>
> wrote:
>> I just wondered if I could access the same 8.4.2 server from the
>> Windows
>> partition (XP via "Bootcamp") as I do from the Mac partition on my
>> Mac?
>
> Assuming both virtual machines (or the virtual machine and the host)
> are up at the same time, it's more of a networking issue that anything
> else.  As long as the pg_hba.conf and postgresql.conf files have
> entries allowing outside machines to connect via TCP/IP you should be
> able to just point your windows partition over to the IP of the Mac
> partition and be set.

This response came in as I was mea culpa-ing.

Everything here is correct to the best of my knowledge.

And I am very glad to be warned not to go between the two OS's.

Thank you,

John

> Personally, what I'd do would be create a virtual machine image with
> something like VMWare - something that is supported on both Mac OS X
> and
> on Windows. Put it somewhere both systems can access it - probably the
> Windows NTFS partition. Then, whichever OS you're using, start the
> virtual machine with Pg on it and use that server over the virtual
> network between the VM and the real host.
>
> Alternately, you could just point Pg at a data-dir on storage that
> both
> systems can access, as described earlier. I'd be pretty wary of doing
> this, though.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer

My vote would be to follow Craig Ringer's advice to run the pg server in a virtual machine. I'd choose something like vmware/fusion or if you want license free options, I think they exist that can run hosts on win32 and BSD/MacOS.

But if you wanted to avoid dual booting altogether and parallels/fusion/whatever can run you win32 apps well enough, I'd run the server on the Mac side and let the win apps connect to it via the virtual network adapters. This is how I've run things on my Mac with decent results.

HTH,
-Joshua

On 31/03/2010 10:27 PM, Joshua Berry wrote:
> My vote would be to follow Craig Ringer's advice to run the pg server in
> a virtual machine. I'd choose something like vmware/fusion or if you
> want license free options, I think they exist that can run hosts on
> win32 and BSD/MacOS.
>
> But if you wanted to avoid dual booting altogether and
> parallels/fusion/whatever can run you win32 apps well enough, I'd run
> the server on the Mac side and let the win apps connect to it via the
> virtual network adapters. This is how I've run things on my Mac with
> decent results.

Yeah. Not having Pg in a VM is better, given the choice. It's hard to
say how trustworthy fsync() behaviour on various VMs is, for one thing.
I'd still use a VM over ntfs-on-mac or hfs+-on-windows, but running it
natively and using it over tcp/ip is always going to be preferable if
you can.

--
Craig Ringer