| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Gavin M(dot) Roy" <gmr(at)myyearbook(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: Location of PostgreSQL Performance Test Lab |
| Date: | 2007-08-01 07:45:56 |
| Message-ID: | 46B03A34.8090803@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-www |
Josh Berkus wrote:
> JD,
>
>> A. Command Prompt has physical access to its location
>> B. Command Prompt has tons of bandwidth
>> C. Command Prompt has power
>> D. Command Prompt has proven a reliable provider
>> E. Command Prompt loves the PostgreSQL community ;)
>> F. We would probably have to charge a bit for power cause we are talking
>> about some serious machines.
>> G. We are close to Mark Wong as well
>
> OK, I'm sold, barring objections from the donors. Anyone?
>
How much of Command Prompt have access to the location? We've been
waiting for a number of weeks to get the new pgFoundry machine plugged
in and switched on because only JD had access to the DC and he was busy
preparing for OSCON.
I don't object in principle, I'd just like some reassurance that we
won't see the perf machines lying idle or awaiting maintenance for the
same or similar reasons.
Regards, Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-01 08:55:09 | Re: Location of PostgreSQL Performance Test Lab |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2007-08-01 03:17:48 | Re: Location of PostgreSQL Performance Test Lab |