Bugzilla from scher...@proteus-tech.com wrote
> Oh - and lots of memory is always good no matter what as others have said.
I'm probably "the others" here. I have seen already really large
instalations like with 6TB of RAM. Dealing with it is like completely other
universe of problems, because of N
First - NEVER USE NFS TO STORE DATA YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE. That said, what
you want to host on depends a lot on whether your system is typically CPU
bound or I/O bound. A VM for the computational side is generally quite
fine. If you're seriously CPU bound then you're likely to want to cluster
the
On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 09:51:53AM -0800, Steve Atkins wrote:
> I've been running postgresql instances on ESXi VMs for years with no
> issues. I've not benchmarked them, but performance has been good
> enough despite their running on fairly wimpy hardware. Performance
> relative to bare metal is pr
David Gauthier writes:
> Hi:
>
> I'm going to be requesting a PG DB instance (v9.6.7) from an IT dept in a
> large corp setting. I was wondering if anyone could comment on the
> pros/cons of getting this put on a virtual machine vs hard metal ? Locally
> mounted disk vs nfs ?
>
This is a hard
> On Mar 5, 2018, at 8:53 AM, David Gauthier wrote:
>
> Hi:
>
> I'm going to be requesting a PG DB instance (v9.6.7) from an IT dept in a
> large corp setting. I was wondering if anyone could comment on the pros/cons
> of getting this put on a virtual machine vs hard metal ? Locally mount
Hi:
I'm going to be requesting a PG DB instance (v9.6.7) from an IT dept in a
large corp setting. I was wondering if anyone could comment on the
pros/cons of getting this put on a virtual machine vs hard metal ? Locally
mounted disk vs nfs ?
Thanks !
