From: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Froggy / Froggy Corp(dot)" <froggy(at)froggycorp(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [Re] Need help with postgresql/apache/php optimisation |
Date: | 2004-02-19 00:10:22 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.33.0402181709120.3943-100000@css120.ihs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, Richard Huxton wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2004 21:53, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >
> > If you could just get them to add some more memory you'd probably be ok.
> > 256 meg would be ok if it was nothing but a pgsql server, but having to
> > host apache and whatever else it's really slim pickins.
> >
> > Plus if you could get another IDE drive put in and mirror the first one it
> > might help, especially for parallel access.
>
> You're all spoilt - why when I was a lad we had 1 floppy disk between 12 of
> us, and we were happy...
>
> Seriously though Scott, he's only handling 3000 hits per day, with a target of
> 5000. I'm not saying it's a speed machine, but we should be good for that in
> 256MB.
Oh my god, I just saw that. I thought it was like 5000 an hour or maybe a
minute.
I am spoilt. our newest server, which is a LAPP server, can do something
like 1,000,000 transactions an hour under pgbench, and it's not heavily
tuned, and is running 7.2.4.
I wonder how complex the queries must be to be that slow...
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2004-02-19 00:14:40 | Re: Best replication options |
Previous Message | Richard Huxton | 2004-02-18 23:29:46 | Re: [Re] Need help with postgresql/apache/php optimisation |