From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: Location of PostgreSQL Performance Test Lab
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 20:00:38 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
References: <200707310919.10745.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200707311914.40304.peter_e@gmx.net>
	<200707311022.30818.josh@agliodbs.com>
In-Reply-To: <200707311022.30818.josh@agliodbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200707312000.39340.peter_e@gmx.net>

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

You have certainly heard of the world wide web, where you can easily 
publish fabulous lists of information in easily accessible form.

> 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.

A requirement to have 4 machines at one site to perform a particular 
test is not a logical reason to reject the possibility of having, say, 
20 machines at 5 sites to perform all kinds of tests, when the 
alternative is to have no machines at no sites.

If you can find someone to host everything, great, but you have in fact 
already rejected two machines because they are not at the right 
location, when I can see great use for those machines no matter where 
they are.

> 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.

I think you are wrong.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/