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 4ADF33A3B01; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:01:01 +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 00569-05; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:00:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.86]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B7B3A3B15; Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:00:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk ([194.217.48.34] helo=ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk) by anchor-post-36.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1COwPB-000Jc9-Lw; Tue, 02 Nov 2004 11:00:49 +0000 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org? X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 11:00:48 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org? Thread-Index: AcTAxreX2kG66dWFSnWSPy/diHNvJgABAYUQ From: "Dave Page" To: "Alexey Borzov" , "Marc G. Fournier" Cc: 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: 200411/12 X-Sequence-Number: 5743 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org=20 > [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Alexey Borzov > Sent: 02 November 2004 10:25 > To: Marc G. Fournier > Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org? >=20 > Hi, >=20 > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > Am looking into this with Alexey offlist ... >=20 > Looking into this stuff offlist highlighted the following obvious > problem: postgresql.org (as well as wwwdevel) runs on a=20 > shared server that has *lots* of other tasks that can=20 > negatively affect performance.=20 > It is difficult to even point finger at one particular task=20 > that does this. >=20 > So the solution (as was also pointed out in a private mail to=20 > me) is to get a dedicated server for running the "master" website. A /dedicated/ server is *way* over the top as I pointed out in my previous private message to you. The current site regens all 7000+ pages in a few minutes for example. I agree though that we could use a little more horsepower though - I'll see if I can setup something on one of my boxes here over the next few days. Regards, Dave