On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Ron Johnson wrote:

> On Fri, 2003-10-03 at 12:52, Stef wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:32:00 -0400
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > => What exactly is failing?  And what's the platform, anyway?
> > 
> > Nothing is really failing atm, except the funds for better 
> > hardware. JBOSS and some other servers need to be 
> > run on these machines, along with linux, which will be 
> > a minimal RH >= 7.2 with kernel 2.4.21
> > (Any better suggestions here?)
> > 
> > In this case, whatever is the least amount of memory
> > postgres can run on, is what is needed. So this is still
> > a kind of feasibility study. Of course, it will still be thoroughly
> > tested, if it turns out to be possible. (Which I know it is, but not how)
> JBOSS, PostgreSQL & 2.4.21 all on a computer w/ 8MB RAM?  A 486 or
> *very* low end Pentium?
> It'll thrash (in the literal sense) the page files.  *No* work 
> will get done.

I built a test server four years ago on a P100 with 64 Megs of RAM and it 
was already a pretty slow / old box at that time.

Considering that those kind of beasts sell by the pound nowadays, I can't 
imagine torturing yourself by using a 486 with 8 megs of ram.  Even my 
ancient 486DX50 Toshiba 4700 has 16 Megs of ram in it.

IF ons has to develop in such a low end environment you're much better 
off either writing perl CGI or using PHP, which both use much less memory 
than JBoss.

I don't think I'd try to run JBoss / Postgresql on anything less than 64 
or 128 Meg of RAM.  Even then you're probably looking at having a fair bit 
of swapping going on.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to