Thanks to Gavin and Alban for additional considerations, all very useful.
As for Linux, I have to admit that I am biased too! I use it heavily, which
is the reason I would incline for its use. But after all, since I'm not
going to administrate the server, the best choice will probably be IT
cho
On 12 February 2015 at 00:38, Mathieu Basille
wrote:
> Platform
>
>
> Linux is the platform of choice:
> * Easier administration (install/configuration/upgrade), which is also true
> for addons/dependencies (starting with PostGIS, but also GEOS, GDAL, PL/R);
> * Better performance [4];
>
On 12/02/15 12:38, Mathieu Basille wrote:
[...]
[1] Start of the thread here:
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/2015-February/040120.html
[...]
http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/postgis-users/2015-February/040134.html
[...]
* About usage being mostly read: this will be true for mos
On 12/02/15 12:38, Mathieu Basille wrote:
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread, either on the
PostGIS [1] or the PostgreSQL [2] mailing lists. I will try to
summarize everything in this message, which I will actually post on
both lists to give an update to everyone. I hope it can b
Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread, either on the PostGIS
[1] or the PostgreSQL [2] mailing lists. I will try to summarize everything
in this message, which I will actually post on both lists to give an update
to everyone. I hope it can be useful for other people interested. Pleas
I am currently planning to set up a PostgreSQL + PostGIS instance for my
lab. Turns out I believe this would be useful for the whole center, so
that I'm now considering setting up the server for everyone—if interest
is shared of course. At the moment, I am however struggling with what
would be req
On 11/02/15 13:52, Mathieu Basille wrote:
Dear PostgreSQL users,
I am posting here a question that I initially asked on the PostGIS
list [1], where I was advised to try here too (I will keep both lists
updated about the developments on this issue).
I am currently planning to set up a Postgre
Responses in-line:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:52:41 -0500
Mathieu Basille wrote:
>
> I am posting here a question that I initially asked on the PostGIS list
> [1], where I was advised to try here too (I will keep both lists updated
> about the developments on this issue).
>
> I am currently plan
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 09:20:00AM +0200, Rafael Montoya wrote:
> Ok, there are about 15 concurrent clients inserting and updating data, and
> 20 concurrent clients only consulting.
> I dont need all data in ram, of course, hehe, but i really have no idea
> what's the minimum of ram for having f
am 29.09.2005, um 9:20:00 +0200 mailte Rafael Montoya folgendes:
> Ok, there are about 15 concurrent clients inserting and updating data, and
> 20 concurrent clients only consulting.
> I dont need all data in ram, of course, hehe, but i really have no idea
> what's the minimum of ram for havin
afael Montoya
From: Ben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rafael Montoya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Hardware requirements
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 23:30:06 -0700
Unless you need all that data in ram (and you probably don't), then
Unless you need all that data in ram (and you probably don't), then
any machine should be capable. The real questions are, how many
concurrent clients? How static is the data? What is your query
complexity?
On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:08 PM, Rafael Montoya wrote:
Hello everybody, i really need
I doubt there is a general rule as to which is better, it will depend
upon the individual circumstances (including budget).
It is my experience that 0+1 is a bit faster that RAID 5.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
Were you told why that was the wrong choice?
--
Mike Nolan
> > Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
> I have had the Mirroring vs RAID 5 debate before.
> You would go with RAID 5 to obtain the fault tolerance.
>
> That was my first choice but I was told I was wrong.
I doubt there is a general rule as to which is better, it will depend
upon the individual circumstances (
kbd wrote:
Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
I have had the Mirroring vs RAID 5 debate before.
You would go with RAID 5 to obtain the fault tolerance.
That was my first choice but I was told I was wrong.
0+1 is RAID + STRIPE, it is (theoretically) faster than RAID 5 but
requires 4 disks where RAID 5 o
> Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
I have had the Mirroring vs RAID 5 debate before.
You would go with RAID 5 to obtain the fault tolerance.
That was my first choice but I was told I was wrong.
kd
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Joshua D. Drake") wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >
> >I am co
The last time I built an RH system, one with 1GB, I had to recompile
the kernel and change the 'High Memory Support' setting to get it to
use the full 1GB.
That was under RH 8, though.
Even on redhat 8, all you have to do is install the bigmem kernel...
which does ship with RH8.
-
> >Does this config cover the above requirements very well.
> >Does anybody know if RedHat 9 or Fedora can address 2 Gig
> >of RAM out of the box?
> >
> Yes they can.
The last time I built an RH system, one with 1GB, I had to recompile
the kernel and change the 'High Memory Support' setting to ge
I am considering a generic box with a single 2 - 2.6 Gig processor.
2 Gig of RAM and mirrored 200 Gig drives.
Use RAID 5 or 0+1...
Does this config cover the above requirements very well.
Does anybody know if RedHat 9 or Fedora can address 2 Gig
of RAM out of the box?
Yes they can.
19 matches
Mail list logo
