Re: is linux ready for databases ? (Ziff Davis article

From: Dennis Gearon <gearond(at)fireserve(dot)net>
To: Mike Mascari <mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com>
Cc: "Gregory S(dot) Williamson" <gsw(at)globexplorer(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: is linux ready for databases ? (Ziff Davis article
Date: 2003-08-26 17:22:35
Message-ID: 3F4B975B.6080906@fireserve.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Yup, me too. Unthought out techspeak.

Mike Mascari wrote:

>Gregory S. Williamson wrote:
>
>
>
>>One of our sysads sent this link ... wondering if there
>>is any comment on it from the world of actual users
>>of linux and a database.
>>
>><http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&ncid=738&e=9&u=/zd/20030825/tc_zd/55311>
>>
>>
>
>I found the following paragraph humorous:
>
>"A key component that needs further development is the threading model
>used by the system kernel, Binstock said. Multithreading is crucial to
>running an enterprise database. Without it, a database would have to
>handle every data query as it comes in, keeping all other queries
>waiting in queue, since the system would be incapable of parallel
>processing."
>
>Mike Mascari
>mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com
>
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hervé Piedvache 2003-08-26 17:25:22 Re: WAL Files checkpoint_timeout with voluminous delete/insert
Previous Message Ron Johnson 2003-08-26 17:11:41 Re: [PERFORM] Best tweak for fast results.. ?