On Wed, 12 Feb 2003, GB Clark wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:19:36 -0700 (MST)
> "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 23 Jan 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> >
> > > Curt Sampson kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 17:42:
> > > > If the OS can handle the scheduling (which, last I checked, Li
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:19:36 -0700 (MST)
"scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:
>
> > Curt Sampson kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 17:42:
> > > If the OS can handle the scheduling (which, last I checked, Linux couldn't,
> >
> > When did you do your checking
On Thu, Jan 16, 2003 at 12:23:52PM -0500, Neil Conway wrote:
>
> The estimates I've heard from a couple parties are that PostgreSQL tends
> to scale well up to 4 CPUs. I've been meaning to take a look at
> improving that, but I haven't had a chance yet...
I can definitely tell you that Postgres s
On 23 Jan 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Curt Sampson kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 17:42:
> > If the OS can handle the scheduling (which, last I checked, Linux couldn't,
>
> When did you do your checking ?
> (just curious, not to start a flame war ;)
>
> > at least not without patches), eight or
On Fri, 23 Jan 2003, Hannu Krosing wrote:
> Curt Sampson kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 17:42:
> > If the OS can handle the scheduling (which, last I checked, Linux couldn't,
>
> When did you do your checking ?
> (just curious, not to start a flame war ;)
This was perhaps a year or so ago. IBM had s
Curt Sampson kirjutas N, 23.01.2003 kell 17:42:
> If the OS can handle the scheduling (which, last I checked, Linux couldn't,
When did you do your checking ?
(just curious, not to start a flame war ;)
> at least not without patches), eight or sixteen
> CPUs will be fine.
>
> cjs
--
Hannu Kros
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Due to the fact that we are growing out of our current system
> (PostgreSQL on PCs) we are looking for ways to expand and one of the
> suggestions has been to toss PostgreSQL in favour of Oracle with
> Remote Access Cluster (RAC) software. The theory
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > By the way, I too wonder which supported OS platform would support
> > > over 4GB of memory on a PC..
> >
> > Linux? I don't think there's any problem handling more than 4G
> > memory in the system. On 32bit architectures, there's of course the
> >
> > That would depend on the OS. Not many 'pc-based unix' support over
> > 4 GB of memory, some don't even go that far.
>
> > By the way, I too wonder which supported OS platform would support
> > over 4GB of memory on a PC..
>
> Linux? I don't think there's any problem handling more than 4G
> me
[no cc:s please]
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 10:31, Daniel Kalchev wrote:
> >>>"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said:
> > On Thursday 16 January 2003 11:59, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrot
> e:
> > > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > > We are also looking at hardware solutio
>>>"D'Arcy J.M. Cain" said:
> On Thursday 16 January 2003 11:59, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrot
e:
> > On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > > We are also looking at hardware solutions, multi-CPU PCs with tons (24GB
)
> > > of memory. I know that memory
On Thursday 16 January 2003 11:59, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > We are also looking at hardware solutions, multi-CPU PCs with tons (24GB)
> > of memory. I know that memory will improve access if it prevents
> > swapping but
On Thursday 16 January 2003 20:54, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> > toss PostgreSQL in favour of Oracle with Remote Access Cluster (RAC)
> > software.
>
> You mean Real Application Clusters?
Oops, yes.
--
D'Arcy J.M. Cain| Democracy is three wolves
http://www.druid.net/darcy/
On Thursday 16 January 2003 12:23, Neil Conway wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 11:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> > Is [Oracle RAC] really as simple as it sounds or would we just be
> > giving up the other two for a new set of problems.
>
> That's a question you should be asking to an authority on Ora
> Due to the fact that we are growing out of our current system
> (PostgreSQL on
> PCs) we are looking for ways to expand and one of the suggestions
> has been to
> toss PostgreSQL in favour of Oracle with Remote Access Cluster (RAC)
> software.
You mean Real Application Clusters?
Chris
-
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 11:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> Is [Oracle RAC] really as simple as it sounds or would we just be
> giving up the other two for a new set of problems.
That's a question you should be asking to an authority on Oracle RAC
(which pgsql-hackers is not).
> My idea is to create a
On Thu, 2003-01-16 at 17:42, D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote:
> We are also looking at hardware solutions, multi-CPU PCs with tons (24GB) of
> memory. I know that memory will improve access if it prevents swapping but
> how well does PostgreSQL utilize multiple CPUs?
At most one CPU is used for any sin
Due to the fact that we are growing out of our current system (PostgreSQL on
PCs) we are looking for ways to expand and one of the suggestions has been to
toss PostgreSQL in favour of Oracle with Remote Access Cluster (RAC)
software. The theory is that you can just plug machines into the cluste
18 matches
Mail list logo
