Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
Postgresql 7.4/8 (I believe I can compile the latter from the debian
When you will compile postgresql don't forget add configuration option
to use timestamp as integer64. :-) In debian package this already
configured.
One possible configuration we are
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 11:46:36PM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
We intend to use 2 SCSI disks in RAID1 for the system and the others in
RAID10 for the DB.
There is (obviously) a lot of debate about SATA vs SCSI on the
Postgresql list. The general opinion is that 7200 rpm SATA disks just
Hi Nathan
On 19/06/05, Nathan Dragun ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
Everything on your list is available as far as I'm aware, don't know
about the postgresql though. You have to realize that its much easier
than most to bring the standard x86 packages over since
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
How hard is it to use Debian AMD64?
I run about 15 Debian servers for various clients. These are all 32 bit
machines, mainly dual Xeons or Pentium IVs; we use Debian on our Apple
ibooks too. All of our machines run stable +
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Last I checked the 3114 was not very well supported, although that hashopefully
improved by now. It is of course software raid only so you
are better of pretending it is just a SATA controller and using MD
software raid if you want raid at all.
I wish I could say
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 10:17 -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 12:30:39AM +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
How hard is it to use Debian AMD64?
[snip]
SCSI HDD : 6 x 36GB 15,000 rpm Ultra320
Hmm, expensive stuff. I am not a scsi person anymore. The
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 01:54:03PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
Hmm, expensive stuff. I am not a scsi person anymore. The high prices
and lousy performance I got from IBMs 15k rpm scsi drives and raid
controller a few years ago while spending a ton of money just makes me
not interested
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
True, but that may just be a flaw of the built in controller, not of
SATA. You can't connect scsi at all to many machines, which doesn't
make scsi broken. You can get SATA controllers that run 24 drives if
you want, and unlike scsi, they don't even share the connector
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:18:16PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote:
I hardly see how 24 cables versus 2 is hardly even something you'd have
to consider making a choice about. SCSI channels can take one heck of a
beating, besides, your point is irrelevant since you can have the same
software
Jacob Larsen wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan Dragun wrote:
Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways
before they go to the SATA channel.
Seagate have had native SATA for some time now.
Woops, sorry about that bit of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nathan Dragun wrote:
Lastly, all SATA drives have either IDE or SCSI interfaces anyways
before they go to the SATA channel.
Seagate have had native SATA for some time now.
/Jacob
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote:
Woops, sorry about that bit of mis-information.
What kind of performance gains have they been showing over the IDE/SCSI
interface SATA drives, any clue?
Well most drives have never hit the speed limits of the interface they
use,
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 04:01:20PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote:
So, why not get SCSI that supports the same thing?
SATA drives are much bigger, often have higher transfer rates (although
slower seeks too in general compared to 15k drives), have nicer cables
that don't block airflow, cost much
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
SAS the statistics company?
SAS the Scandinavian Airlines?
SAS the School of Advanced Study? http://www.sas.ac.uk/
SAS the Surfers Against Sewage? http://www.sas.org.uk/
SAS the Special Air Service?
SAS the Society for Applied
On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:09:45PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
SAS the statistics company?
SAS the Scandinavian Airlines?
SAS the School of Advanced Study? http://www.sas.ac.uk/
SAS the Surfers Against Sewage? http://www.sas.org.uk/
SAS the Special
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 10:39:37PM +0200, Mattias Wadenstein wrote:
Ah, but SAS was mostly non-conflicting in the storage world. Remember that
SSA is both the architecture: Serial Storage Architecture (IBM SSA*) and a
brand acronym for the Sparc Storage Array.
Well yes SSA would have been
Hi Everyone
On 20/06/05, Lennart Sorensen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:49:33PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote:
Woops, sorry about that bit of mis-information.
What kind of performance gains have they been showing over the IDE/SCSI
interface SATA drives, any clue?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lennart Sorensen) writes:
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 03:18:16PM -0400, Nathan Dragun wrote:
I hardly see how 24 cables versus 2 is hardly even something you'd have
to consider making a choice about. SCSI channels can take one heck of a
beating, besides, your point is
How hard is it to use Debian AMD64?
I run about 15 Debian servers for various clients. These are all 32 bit
machines, mainly dual Xeons or Pentium IVs; we use Debian on our Apple
ibooks too. All of our machines run stable + a few things from testing +
occasionally something from unstable.
We are
Rory Campbell-Lange wrote:
How hard is it to use Debian AMD64?
Hard to use? Wouldn't say hard at all, its like any other OS now. Easy
to install in one shot now.
Our standard environment includes:
Apache 1.3x/Apache 2.x
PHP4
Python 2.3/2.4 including all standard modules
El lun, 20-06-2005 a las 00:30 +0100, Rory Campbell-Lange escribi:
How hard is it to use Debian AMD64?
I run about 15 Debian servers for various clients. These are all 32 bit
machines, mainly dual Xeons or Pentium IVs; we use Debian on our Apple
ibooks too. All of our machines run stable + a
21 matches
Mail list logo
