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 155CB3A44E5; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:17:57 +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 21149-01; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:17:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net (anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.90]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FE613A44E7; Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:17:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mailgate.vale-housing.co.uk ([194.217.48.34] helo=ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk) by anchor-post-32.mail.demon.net with esmtp (Exim 4.42) id 1CPOlc-000G72-7r; Wed, 03 Nov 2004 17:17:52 +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: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 17:17:51 -0000 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org Thread-Index: AcTBxkjIRKl6KTSbQSWeFU8oSIVY5AAAfasA From: "Dave Page" To: "Mitch Pirtle" , "Alexey Borzov" Cc: "Oleg Bartunov" , "Marc G. Fournier" , 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: 200411/45 X-Sequence-Number: 5776 =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Mitch Pirtle [mailto:mitch.pirtle@gmail.com]=20 > Sent: 03 November 2004 16:58 > To: Alexey Borzov > Cc: Oleg Bartunov; Marc G. Fournier; Dave Page;=20 > pgsql-www@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org >=20 > And several people have offered over the last few months,=20 > including myself. I am thinking about a dual xeon with 1 GB=20 > RAM that has a load average of 0.01... Nightly backups too,=20 > with disk a non-factor. I asked about bandwidth usage=20 > estimates but never got that far :-( >=20 > This I simply do not understand. If there is a need for=20 > dedicated hardware, and it is being offered, then why is it=20 > not being accepted?=20 > Didn't CommandPrompt also offer dedicated hardware? >=20 > Not wanting to start another heated debate, just wanting to=20 > understand what the deal is - as this topic keeps getting=20 > 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. What we seem to have is a php performance issue that we haven't tracked down yet which only noticably affects the beta site. Yes, we can throw more hardware at it if it really comes down to it (I can also rustle something pretty nippy up), but it makes more sense to figure out why we're having this problem in the first place. Your offer is noted and appreciated though :-) Regards, Dave