From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Dave Page <dpage(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, 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 08:55:09 |
Message-ID: | 20070801085509.GC4766@svr2.hagander.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-www |
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:45:56AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> 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.
Yeah, that's especially important given the talk about being able to easily
move disk array between servers and such. While we don't need
30-minute-on-site committment, we do need some level of commitment for
something like that.
//Magnus
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2007-08-01 08:56:17 | Re: Any use for two Compaqs in Europe? |
Previous Message | Dave Page | 2007-08-01 07:45:56 | Re: Location of PostgreSQL Performance Test Lab |