Re: understanding postgres issues/bottlenecks

From: david(at)lang(dot)hm
To: Glyn Astill <glynastill(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: understanding postgres issues/bottlenecks
Date: 2009-01-11 23:35:22
Message-ID: alpine.DEB.1.10.0901111533130.6192@asgard.lang.hm
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Glyn Astill wrote:

> --- On Sun, 11/1/09, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> They also told me we could never lose power in the hosting
>> center
>> because it was so wonder and redundant and that I was
>> wasting my time.
>
> We'll that's just plain silly, at the very least there's always going to
> be some breakers / fuzes in between the power and the machines.
>
> In fact in our building there's quite a few breaker points between our
> comms room on the 3rd floor and the ups / generator in the basement.
> It's a crappy implementation actually.

the response I get from people is that they give their servers redundant
poewr supplies and put them on seperate circuits so they must be safe from
that.

but as commented, that's not enough in the real world.

David Lang

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2009-01-11 23:44:53 Re: understanding postgres issues/bottlenecks
Previous Message M. Edward (Ed) Borasky 2009-01-11 23:28:09 Re: block device benchmarking