From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Scaling further up |
Date: | 2004-03-02 02:43:18 |
Message-ID: | m3y8qkx92x.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
After a long battle with technology, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com (Josh Berkus), an earthling, wrote:
>> Other than the disks, I am curious what other people are using in
>> terms of the horsepower needed. The Quad server has been keeping
>> up, but we are expecting quite high loads in the near future, and I
>> am not sure if just by having the disks on a high-end storage will
>> do it.
>
> Do a performance analysis of RH9. My experience with RH on Xeon has
> been quite discouraging lately, and I've been recommending swapping
> stock kernels for the RH kernel.
By that, you mean that you recommend that RHAT kernels be replaced by
"stock" ones?
> Of course, if this is RHES, rather than the standard, then test &
> talk to RH instead.
If you're spending the money, better demand value from the vendor...
(And if RHAT is going to charge the big bucks, they'll have to provide
service...)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
"I take it all back. Microsoft Exchange is RFC compliant.
RFC 1925, point three." -- Author unknown
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | teknokrat | 2004-03-02 10:54:23 | Re: compiling 7.4.1 on Solaris 9 |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-02 01:12:21 | Re: Scaling further up |