Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-02-12 Thread GB Clark
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 ? (just

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-02-12 Thread scott.marlowe
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, Linux couldn't,

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-24 Thread Andrew Sullivan
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

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-23 Thread Curt Sampson
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 3G (I think)

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-23 Thread Hannu Krosing
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 Krosing

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-23 Thread Curt Sampson
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 some

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-23 Thread Curt Sampson
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 is

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-23 Thread scott.marlowe
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 sixteen

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-22 Thread Sean Chittenden
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 memory in the

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-20 Thread Daniel Kalchev
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 will improve

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-20 Thread Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
[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 solutions, multi-CPU

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-17 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
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 Oracle

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-17 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
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 darcy@{druid|vex}.net | Democracy is three wolves

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-17 Thread D'Arcy J.M. Cain
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 how

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-16 Thread Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
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

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-16 Thread Neil Conway
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

Re: [HACKERS] Options for growth

2003-01-16 Thread Christopher Kings-Lynne
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