Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 10:55:09 +0200
From: Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net>
To: Dave Page <dpage@postgresql.org>
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, pgsql-www@postgresql.org,
	"Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>,
	"Gavin M. Roy" <gmr@myyearbook.com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: Location of PostgreSQL Performance Test Lab
Message-ID: <20070801085509.GC4766@svr2.hagander.net>
References: <200707310919.10745.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<af1bce590707311136w1dfc4701s195fc0484000f565@mail.gmail.com>
	<46AFDA4C.9060808@commandprompt.com>
	<200707312017.49644.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<46B03A34.8090803@postgresql.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <46B03A34.8090803@postgresql.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11

On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:45:56AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > JD,
> > 
> >> A. Command Prompt has physical access to its location
> >> B. Command Prompt has tons of bandwidth
> >> C. Command Prompt has power
> >> D. Command Prompt has proven a reliable provider
> >> E. Command Prompt loves the PostgreSQL community ;)
> >> F. We would probably have to charge a bit for power cause we are talking
> >> about some serious machines.
> >> G. We are close to Mark Wong as well
> > 
> > OK, I'm sold, barring objections from the donors.  Anyone?
> > 
> 
> How much of Command Prompt have access to the location? We've been
> waiting for a number of weeks to get the new pgFoundry machine plugged
> in and switched on because only JD had access to the DC and he was busy
> preparing for OSCON.
> 
> I don't object in principle, I'd just like some reassurance that we
> won't see the perf machines lying idle or awaiting maintenance for the
> same or similar reasons.

Yeah, that's especially important given the talk about being able to easily
move disk array between servers and such. While we don't need
30-minute-on-site committment, we do need some level of commitment for
something like that.

//Magnus