Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

I meant,use disks as the medium. Put  DUMP's on it. Vivek Khera wrote: "DG" == Dennis Gearon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DG> With the low cost of disks, it might be a good idea to just copy to DG

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

> "DG" == Dennis Gearon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: DG> With the low cost of disks, it might be a good idea to just copy to DG> disks, that one can put back in. Your file system copies will be broken, since they only work if PG is shut down. For this very reason I don't even bother doing a f

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

> "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> The DB is currently about 27Mb on disk (including indexes) and >> processes several million inserts and updates daily, and a few million >> deletes once every two weeks. GS> Oh, it's a really small database. That helps a lot with the backup

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:21:53PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote: > > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > GS> Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > GS> Oh, it's a really small database. That helps a lot with the backup > GS> problems of 24x7 operation. Still I would be intereste

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

> "AH" == Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: AH> On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 12:21:53PM -0400, Vivek Khera wrote: >> > "GS" == Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> GS> Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: GS> Oh, it's a really small database. That helps a lot with the backup

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

>Don't think of this as a troll, because I really don't know, even >though I do know that MVS, OpenVMS & Solaris can. (I won't even >ask about toys like Windows and FreeBSD.) What so toy in Windows? With some experience on huge DBs, one on Windows ( MS SQL 2K ) works x1.5/2 faster, than one on L

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

> Online backups with archived transaction logs are the next big killer feature > (the last one remaining?) for 24x7 operation I think. I believe this is at least theoretically possible using Linux device layer tricks. Using network block devices, you can have a network RAID1, with the transactio

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

Vivek Khera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I run a 24x7x365 db on FreeBSD which has *never* crashed in the 3 > years it has been in production. Only downtime was the upgrade from > PG 7.1 to 7.2 and once for a switchover from RAID5 to RAID10. I would be interested to know what backup strategy

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Al Hulaton wrote: > After seeing this article yesterday, I did a bit of research. One _big_ reason > why Sourceforge/VA/OSDN is moving over to IBM/Webshere/DB2 from PostgreSQL is > the resulting product will be jointly marketed by Sourceforge and IBM's > zillions of sales p

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:15:14AM -0700, Al Hulaton wrote: > Perhaps the PostgreSQL team bidding for the job, if any were even consulted, > didn't frame the project as IBM did -- a product joint venture. It's a good > tactic and I don't blame Sourceforge one bit for the opportunity. Well, since

Re: [GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

On Tue, 2003-08-26 at 03:06, Shridhar Daithankar wrote: > On 26 Aug 2003 at 2:55, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 16:28, Gregory S. Williamson wrote: > > > One of our sysads sent this link ... wondering if there is any comment on it > > > from the world of actual users of linux and

[GENERAL] Linux ready for high-volume databases?

On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 16:28, Gregory S. Williamson wrote: > One of our sysads sent this link ... wondering if there is any comment on it from > the world of actual users of linux and a database. > > "W