> > A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual
P3 with
> > 1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were
> > running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running
on 2
> > IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and
the idle
On 04 May 2001 23:38:04 +1000, Justin Clift wrote:
> When I checked the Promise site about a week and a half ago, there
> wasn't any mention of Linux support, and doing a quick search for it
> around the Net didn't find any Linux support for this controller either.
>
> Does anyone know of workin
A note about SCSI vs IDE... I have recently tried both on a dual P3 with
1gb of ram running Mandrake 7.2. I was amazed the idle CPU's were
running near 20-23% with nothing other then a bash shell running on 2
IBM IDE ATA 100 drives. I converted to 2 IBM SCSI U2 drives and the idle
CPU's went down
On Thursday 03 May 2001 04:48 pm, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> Those others, like "stable" and "secure". "Enjoyable" is obviously
> subjective (FreeBSD isn't very enjoyable for me, who has used Linux
> and Solaris extensively and much prefer SysV to BSD).
OK, I'll buy that the post was a bit m
GH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Somebody claimed that my post was uninformed...yet RedHat is all of Linux
> now?
No, of course not. Red Hat is more than Linux, Linux is more than our
version of it: Red Hat Linux.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.
---(end of broad
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:52:24PM -0700, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
>
> It's sitting right here on my desk. Ask whatever you want.
>
> Yes they are better web servers than DBMS servers but if you
> database is small enough to cache in RAM then who care if
> the Netra uses slow disks?
>
>
Michelle Murrain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 03 May 2001 11:58 am, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote:
> > GH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> > > > I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and Linux
> Yes they are better web servers than DBMS servers but if you
> database is small enough to cache in RAM then who care if
> the Netra uses slow disks?
>
> All that talk on this list about Linux vs. BSD is silly.
> Why bother when you can have Solaris 8 on SPARC hardware?
Easy: Cost.
(And,
egas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:51 PM
> To: Albertson, Chris
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
>
>
> I was wondering about those boxes, though more so as Web
> servers... I'm
> interested in any other th
> Unfortunately there aren't any great java ports for FreeBSD.
Check out the linux compatibility java support
linux-jdk13
I've found it to be about 95% as fast as something running
under native linux, but I get the perk of BSDs memory management and I
can typically run 1.4 times
EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0100, some SMTP stream spewed forth:
> I only have experience with Red Hat, Solaris 8 (intel), and LinuxPPC.
What
> do you see as the downside of running Red Hat? My intentio
al Message -
From: "GH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Ryan Mahoney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
> On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:07:04PM +0
(Ento, Canberra) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 12:03 AM
> To: 'Ryan Mahoney'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Ideal hardware configuration for pgsql
>
>
> I would make sure that an intel box won't suit before looking
> at
I would make sure that an intel box won't suit before looking at sun. Simply
for cost and if you're planning to run linux on it sun support will be shit
because they don't have skills in that area.
Databases thrive on more spindles, separate system spindles from the db
spindles and swap spindles,
At 7:28 +0200 5/2/2001, Christian Marschalek wrote:
>Maybe a AMD Athlon 1.33GHZ would be better.. It's a very fast CPU and I
>don't know if PostgreSQL runns faster on dual since I don't know if it
>can handle the load balancing?
>Well.. GIG of Ram is never bad... :)
I would think that dual CPU's
> Tomorrow I'd like to place an order for something more
> robust... looking
> into dual PIII, gig of ram and SCSI Raid. Planning on
> running Red Hat 7.1
> on this machine.
Maybe a AMD Athlon 1.33GHZ would be better.. It's a very fast CPU and I
don't know if PostgreSQL runns faster on dual
16 matches
Mail list logo
