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
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 |