Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: New site - minor problem
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:27:48 -0000
Message-ID: 
 <E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4527D06@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk>
Thread-Topic: [pgsql-www] New site - minor problem
Thread-Index: AcTblhUVFfhg005hQnWIH0Bkv1/vhwAADW6g
From: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
To: "Alexey Borzov" <borz_off@cs.msu.su>
Cc: <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>

=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su]=20
> Sent: 06 December 2004 13:19
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] New site - minor problem
>=20
> Ok, I see.
>=20
> But then I have another question: why are we moving the=20
> dynamic site from one inadequate server (due to overload) to=20
> the other (due to bandwidth limits)?=20

Bandwidth should not be an issue except for *possibly* the ip2country
thing, which as I've stated on a number of occasions is, in my opinion,
a lot of overhead for very little gain on any server.

Regardless however, I doubt 2megs will cause any problems - like I said,
I'm being cautious.

> Especially when there=20
> were proposals of better hosting options on this list?

None that I'm aware of that gave us the level of control over software
installation/backups etc. that we like.

Regards, Dave.