| From: | Erich <hh(at)cyberpass(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |
| Date: | 2000-07-20 21:05:39 |
| Message-ID: | 200007202105.OAA25856@cyberpass.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
> Even on Linux? I'm studying a database project where the raw data is 10 to 20
> Gb (it will be in several tables in the same database). Linux has a limit of 2
> Gb for a file (even on 64-bits machine, if I'm correct). A colleague told me
Quoi?
On my RedHat6.2 system:
/dev/md0 14111856 257828 13137168 2% /raid
> to use NetBSD instead, because PostgreSQL on a Linux machine cannot host more
> than 2 Gb per database. Any practical experience? (I'm not interested in "It
> should work".)
For a heavy-duty server, I would probably pick OpenBSD over Linux, but
both will work fine, and both can have filesystems far larger than
2gb.
e
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dale Anderson | 2000-07-20 21:19:25 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |
| Previous Message | James Hall | 2000-07-20 19:25:10 | Mailing List Archives? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2000-07-20 21:30:35 | RE: btree split logic is fragile in the presence of lar ge index items |
| Previous Message | Brook Milligan | 2000-07-20 18:01:30 | Re: Re: [HACKERS] 8Ko limitation |