Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Server unreliability

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004, Josh Berkus wrote:

> The other BSD experts I've talked to all agree that the Jail setup on
> the current servers is a severe performance drain. I think we really
> need to look at not using jails for the the dedicated PostgreSQL
> server(s), when we have them.

k, have your experts talk to my experts :)

more seriously, I have two Dual-PIIIs running with ~25 jails each, and
there are no performance issues that are readily apparent, either with
processes or network ... even neptune, where there are currently 59
running, isn't breaking much of a sweat, to the point that our
conversation here is almost real time, and that is where the mailing lists
are running off of ...

All the 'jail' does is a chroot to a specific directory structure, and
tags the processes running on the server with the 'jail-id' so that ps
inside of the jail only shows those processed appropriately tags ...
unless I've been mis-informed, there is no other overhead ...

once we can put dedicated servers in place, the # of jails running won't
be more then 10, unless there is some major growth in requirements ...

we could probably reduce the # of jails though ... pugs could be merged in
with www quite easily, but I wouldn't merge cvs/pgfoundry and gborg into
the same jail for what I would *hope* are obvious reasons ...

If your experts can give me something more substantial to work with then
opinions, though, I'd happily read it ...

> FWIW, some folks at SourceForge have offered their help in configuring
> this. I'm currently waiting for Adi to get back from vacation to
> proceed.

As there isn't much required in order to config this (as its stuff that
we're already doing to load balance things like the banner ads), not quite
sure what they have in mind *shrug*

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664