Message-ID: <41894174.5020306@cs.msu.su>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 23:37:08 +0300
From: Alexey Borzov <borz_off@cs.msu.su>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Cc: "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org>,
	pgsql-www@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org
References: 
 <E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4306FB9@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: 
 <E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4306FB9@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,

Dave Page wrote:
>>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.
> 
> 
> The problem is not the hardware from what Marc & I can tell - the
> current hardware (a dual PIII with 4GB) is just ticking along with
> little load, and the current website performs quite nicely. 

You mean, of course, "current *static* website performs quite nicely", since PHP 
is horribly slow there as well.

I'd like to repeat, the problem is that the server is not dedicated to 
PostgreSQL project's needs and it has a lot of other stuff that can affect 
performance and is extremely hard to track:

> What we seem
> to have is a php performance issue that we haven't tracked down yet
> which only noticably affects the beta site.