On Mon, 2004-07-12 at 15:30, Joshua Kramer wrote:
> Last week, I got some DB2 literature from IBM. (I didn't ask for it, all
> I wanted was a CD with the software, but I guess they saw fit to send me
> the whole thing.) In this literature was a guide titled, "Why DB2 vs.
> Open Source Databases Sales Guide".
> The guide mostly concentrated on MySQL, but they did have one paragraph
> about PostgreSQL. They noted that SourceForge started off using
> PostgreSQL, but when the site grew it "crashed 4 to 5 times per day" under
> the increased workload as more people put their projects on SF. They of
> course then went on to praise how DB2 handles heavy workloads.
This is horse puckies. Source Forge ran wonderfully on PostgreSQL, and
I can remember when they switched to DB2, it took them over 6 months
just to get keyword searching to work properly. And it was always VERY
slow compared to how fast it had been on PostgreSQL. Find and ask the
guy who built it originally, Tim Perdue. I'm pretty sure he'll back me
up, unless he's under some kind of NDA to not say.
> Can anyone provide details on this? Were the servers misconfigured? I've
> run into situations where the postgres server will stop responding if the
> disk fills to capacity. We should prepare something to respond to this.
(I never experienced any downtime on sourceforge when it was running on
PostgreSQL, and haven't ever heard crashing as the reason it was
converted to DB2, only that IBM was partnering with them and offered it
for "free" (i.e. they paid them to use it.)
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2004-07-13 09:47:13|
|Subject: Re: IBM/DB2 PostgreSQL FUD?|
|Previous:||From: Josh Berkus||Date: 2004-07-12 23:47:07|
|Subject: Re: the PostgreSQL Elephant|