From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Organization: PostgreSQL @ Sun
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Location of PostgreSQL Performance Test Lab
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:22:30 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2
Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
References: <200707310919.10745.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200707310943.18476.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200707311914.40304.peter_e@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <200707311914.40304.peter_e@gmx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200707311022.30818.josh@agliodbs.com>

Peter,

> Why does administration require that all the machines be hosted at one
> site? Most administration is by remote login, and for the physical
> maintenance you could have someone on site do it.

Right, and that's made more complex if the main users aren't clear on where 
the machine is.  

> > and the ability to to do multi-machine configurations.
>
> Well, that is interesting, but not a requirement.  If the machines are not
> at the same site, just don't use them for multi-machine configurations;
> just pick different ones.  (Hey, maybe someone wants to test WAN
> configurations.)

Actually, it *is* a requirement.  Doing a real DBT5 or EAStress test run 
requires at least 2 machines, plus storage, and 3-4 machines is more 
interesting.  Having the machines scattered hither and yon will both 
complicate the maintenance of the test lab and limit its usefulness.

I also think you're arguing for the sake of arguing; you don't do performance 
testing and AFAIK are not planning to host any of the machines.  So why are 
you picking nits?

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco