--- Don Baccus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ummm ... your database is a separate process, it's > just the driver that's > going to run in the threaded environment.
I should have been more clear- my db is not going to be on the same machine as AOLserver. So with AOLserver + db in a 2-tier model instead of 3, I'd naturally like to have my front end machines being utilized as much as possible. > PostgreSQL spawns a new process > for each connection so FreeBSD should make fine use > of both processors. > Generally you'll be asking AOLserver to initiate > several connections and pool > them, which means several backend processes in the > PG case. Right- the actual db itself is not an issue- I simply want the connection pool running as efficiently as possible on an SMP machine. > PL/pgSQL is trustworthy, I'd describe this as a > bogus reason in practice > (being a very experienced PG person). Fair enough- I admittely have no experience- it just "feels" wrong :) > > Simpler administration. (for me anyway) > > What do you think is simpler? The main issue with > PG is having to run a > VACUUM job to recover old tuples Ahh ok- that was a big one- more in a "this seems really hokey, I wonder what else isn't exactly industrial-strength" and if I hadn't read it in some random doc, I wouldn't have had a clue. Also the "increment backwards" bug wasn't exactly confidence-inspiring. > I just ns_sched a Tcl proc that does the VACUUM once > a night and having done > that ... there's no administration involved unless > you've got a rapidly > growing database that requires you watch disk space > etc. That certainly sounds simple enough. > Another major feature missing from PG is some form > of tablespace concept that > lets you put indexes and tables on different > filesystems (in general, > different disk spindles) which can help performance. > That will be coming in > a few months. At the moment you're stuck using the > Unix "ln -s" command to > manage where things are placed if you need to. That will liekly become an issue, but I had planned on eventually needing something like NAS over iSCSI- so I can take a performance hit. > > But- like I said, the differences between both are > > minor, so if I had to use Postgresql, I could. > > Try it ... I think you'll like it. The PG lists are > very helpful, and for > AOLserver + PG issues both this list and the forums > over at our OpenACS > project are full of people who use the two together > day in and day out, for > paying client websites. Alright, that's feasible- but I guess I'll just have to live with my original issue, since postgres doesnt have an external driver either? ===== -- live- http://www.thedenofsin.org/ to- AIM: IMFDUP _-jupiter accepts your offer-_ -- AOLserver - http://www.aolserver.com/ To Remove yourself from this list, simply send an email to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with the body of "SIGNOFF AOLSERVER" in the email message. You can leave the Subject: field of your email blank.
