Subject: Re: postgres: 100% CPU utilization
From: Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@g2switchworks.com>
To: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <A5A57AB2-8863-4296-A7F1-32FDA3711F9C@khera.org>
References: 
 <2C20E65455FC964690D89F8C4A2E9B1D03A669CD@STRAIGHTFLUSH.cryptologic.com>
	<1177344544.7266.5.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
	<A5A57AB2-8863-4296-A7F1-32FDA3711F9C@khera.org>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1177359706.15085.8.camel@state.g2switchworks.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2007 15:21:46 -0500

On Mon, 2007-04-23 at 15:00, Vivek Khera wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2007, at 12:09 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> 
> > And do you have 32 or 64 Megs of memory in that machine?
> >
> > Cause honestly, that's the kinda hardware I was running 7.0.2 on,  
> > so you
> > might as well get retro in your hardware department while you're at  
> > it.
> 
> I think you're being too conservative... I recall that those specs  
> for me correspond to running Pg 6.5 as the latest release...  talk  
> about performance and corruption issues... :-)  He's probably got at  
> least a Pentium II.

Yeah, now that you mention it, I think I was able to come up with a
Pentium 100 with 64 Megs of RAM about the time 6.5 came out, on RedHat
5.1 then 5.2, and with a pair of 1.2 gig IDE drives under the hood.

Those were the days, huh?

I honestly kinda wondered if the original post came out of a time warp,
like some mail relay somewhere held onto it for 4 years or something.