Re: [mail] Re: Windows Build System

On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Katie Ward wrote:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Vince Vielhaber
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 11:45 AM
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: Katie Ward; Tom Lane; Curtis Faith; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Windows Build System
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > > > hammering the betas is a far cry from an "industrial-strength
> > > > solution".
> > >
> > > Have you a better suggestion? Seems a bit catch 22 if testing won't
> > > prove it's good and we can't use it until we know it's good... Still,
> > > industrial strength testing or not, it's more reliable than the SQL 2000
> > > and DB2 installations I have here.
> >
> > Well you have a beta running, load it up with data and let a few hundred
> > clients loose on it. I've seen win2k BSOD with less stress than that.
> >
> > Vince.
>
> We did that as part of our internal testing, using the ATM database and a
> dual-processor machine. We tried both with clients connecting and
> disconnection quickly, and with large numbers of clients that stayed
> connected for a while, all extremely active. Native Win32 performed
> comparably with running the same test on comparable machines on LINUX.
> Nothing crashed.

The code's been available for what a week or two? Do you actually
think that can be considered conclusive by any standard?

Vince.
--
Fast, inexpensive internet service 56k and beyond! http://www.pop4.net/
http://www.meanstreamradio.com http://www.unknown-artists.com
Internet radio: It's not file sharing, it's just radio.