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 931C33A44E7 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:58:05 +0000 (GMT) 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 13817-05 for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:58:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mproxy.gmail.com (mproxy.gmail.com [216.239.56.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E2F3A44CE for ; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 16:58:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id w67so103670cwb for ; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 08:57:58 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:references; b=rTzGA3dc4hnFx9wCZU7q9w8g3LcrWev4VYMQ7BbFXTapWmw7dX4ZFiF7erYgKu8X2ddd41htD9Mxu/462Sl0TEv9dTS9LXGCBN9CrkadgOAOkgX0xW102lNfzMTs6fAAaiV1wf+RovMDh7jUSBSoN1yIkI+y6ESsk0gfRKKHFX8= Received: by 10.11.117.46 with SMTP id p46mr298111cwc; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 08:57:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.11.119.69 with HTTP; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 08:57:57 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <330532b604110308573e485b9b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 11:57:57 -0500 From: Mitch Pirtle Reply-To: Mitch Pirtle To: Alexey Borzov Subject: Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org Cc: Oleg Bartunov , "Marc G. Fournier" , Dave Page , pgsql-www@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <4188B48C.9050103@cs.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <41878616.70705@cs.msu.su> <20041102114746.R33702@ganymede.hub.org> <4187E864.5000703@cs.msu.su> <20041102163552.X82047@ganymede.hub.org> <20041102164614.I82047@ganymede.hub.org> <4188B48C.9050103@cs.msu.su> 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: 200411/44 X-Sequence-Number: 5775 On Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:35:56 +0300, Alexey Borzov wrote: > Your suggestion is nice and all, but right now we are discussing the fact that > we don't even have *one* dedicated server. Only a shared account on substandard > hardware, incapable of running PHP scripts. :( And several people have offered over the last few months, including myself. I am thinking about a dual xeon with 1 GB RAM that has a load average of 0.01... Nightly backups too, with disk a non-factor. I asked about bandwidth usage estimates but never got that far :-( This I simply do not understand. If there is a need for dedicated hardware, and it is being offered, then why is it not being accepted? Didn't CommandPrompt also offer dedicated hardware? Not wanting to start another heated debate, just wanting to understand what the deal is - as this topic keeps getting regurgitated without a conclusion. -- Mitch