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
