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
17 matches
Mail list logo
