On Wed, 2007-07-25 at 20:22 -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > I'm checking into this, but it may take a few days to get an answer
> > (particularly since I'm planning to take Friday through Monday off).
> Well if we go RHEL why not CentOS5 and just call it good?
...because RHEL and CentOS are not really that identical. They are just
RHEL has better performance than CentOS -- I guess it is the compiler
options that Red Hat is using while compiling their RPMs.
I have performed a test using OSDL test suite a few months ago on a
system that has:
* 8 x86_64 CPUs @ 3200.263
* 16 Gigabytes of RAM
* PostgreSQL 8.1.5 (PGDG packages)
and RHEL performed much better than CentOS.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, ODBCng - http://www.commandprompt.com/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Alvaro Herrera||Date: 2007-07-30 20:47:58|
|Subject: Re: Quick idea for reducing VACUUM contention|
|Previous:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2007-07-30 19:20:48|
|Subject: Reducing Transaction Start/End Contention|