Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL

On Wednesday 27 June 2001 16:45, Alex Knight wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > This one has been streaming our RealAudio stream 24x7 since May 1,
> > 1997 (minus a few hours for maintenance -- you know, things like
> > replacing failed power supplies, replacing/installing hard drives,

> Even though it may appear that your server is doing a lot, it's not facing
> the load of a highly scaled enterprise level e-commerce site, where RedHat
> just doesn't cut it.

My server has hit an Apache Bench level, with 100 simultaneous connections,
using an OpenACS test page, of 15 pages per second -- which doesn't sound
like much until you find out that the page in question involved no less than
_six_ PostgreSQL queries. And it saturated the 10Mbps ethernet segment it
was on during the test. And this was with RHL 5.2. I haven't benched 7.1 as
yet. While doing live audio encoding to multiple streams.

Tell me this -- if Red Hat is using the same kernel as Debian, how can Debian
do a better job on performance, all daemons being equal? Same compiler --
same kernel -- same processor -- different packagers. Why would Debian be
better in that circumstance?

> I have a T1 to my house, and I saturate it all the time... without load :)

Saturating a T1 on download doesn't count. :-)

No, I don't have a system that would load down one of Above.Net's OC12's (and
their larger pipes....). But I do have solid 24x7 experience running a solid
Red Hat system -- and, for my production purposes it runs just fine. Better
than fine, actually. And PostgreSQL is a big part of that -- even if we
don't load things as heavy as some, it still works. Reliably.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11