X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B192232A086; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:32:22 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 96716-04; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:32:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (candle.pha.pa.us [207.106.42.251]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0A1B32A01F; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 21:32:18 +0100 (BST) Received: (from pgman@localhost) by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.11.6) id i8TKWAE19498; Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:32:10 -0400 (EDT) From: Bruce Momjian Message-Id: <200409292032.i8TKWAE19498@candle.pha.pa.us> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Server unreliability In-Reply-To: <200409291041.30627.darcy@wavefire.com> To: Darcy Buskermolen Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:32:10 -0400 (EDT) Cc: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org, pgsql-www@postgresql.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL108 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200409/220 X-Sequence-Number: 5290 Darcy Buskermolen wrote: > On September 29, 2004 10:13 am, you wrote: > > It is my opinion that we have to make major changes in the way we > > provide hosting for our servers. There are several problems: > > > > o Location of servers > > > > The location of our servers in Panama is a problem. They are too far > > for any PostgreSQL maintainers to access. Changing hardware or > > diagnosing problems has been too hard. I have had like 2 days of > > downtime on my home machine in the past 12 years. We have had more than > > 2 days of downtime in the past 6 months. My wife would not accept such > > a reliability level. > > Yes location is a bit of a concern, but I think it's muchless of a concern > than the rest of the issues. I think with hardware/jail issues sorted out > this one will for the most part take careof it's self, or at least be far > less apparent. I agree, and Marc has an idea for remote administration too. > > > > o FreeBSD > > > > The use of FreeBSD jails can cause servers to take +8 hours to fsck on a > > server crash or power failure. Again, I would never accept such > > problems on my home server so it is hard to fathom how a project with > > thousands of users can accept that. Either we need to find a fix, stop > > using jails, or get another operating system, but continuing to use a > > setup with a known problem is just asking for trouble. > > The over use of jails I think is complicating things, what are the odds that > someone could find it in their heart to raid the old hardware pile in their > serverback room, and come up with a PIII 800MHz + system with a gig of ram > that they could donate to the cause, and we move some of the more critical > services (www/ftp/anoncvs) to that box without jails. I have a dual PIII 550MHz here that I can give away. It was my previous server. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073