Re: Linux ready for high-volume databases?
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Linux ready for high-volume databases? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3F4B6254.6396.8A2DE7B@localhost обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Linux ready for high-volume databases? (Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Linux ready for high-volume databases?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On 26 Aug 2003 at 2:55, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2003-08-25 at 16:28, Gregory S. Williamson wrote: > > One of our sysads sent this link ... wondering if there is any comment on it from the world of actual users of linuxand a database. > > > > <http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1738&ncid=738&e=9&u=/zd/20030825/tc_zd/55311> > > "Weak points include lack of available tools, ease of use and ease > of installation" > > Sounds like he needs point-and-drool tools... > > On the other hand, could even a beefy Linux 2.4 *today* system handle > a 24x7 500GB db that must process 6-8M OLTP-style transactions per > day, while also getting hit by report queries? If linux isn't limited to intel, probably yes. Of course, that does not carry any weightage beyond an opinion. Probably on mainframe/postgresql it could handle that..:-) You have a monster database running. That is a proof. Well, I don't know of any. BTW, Tom mentioned couple of huge databases under postgresql, the 2u survey and I forgot the other one. What they were running on? > Don't think of this as a troll, because I really don't know, even > though I do know that MVS, OpenVMS & Solaris can. (I won't even > ask about toys like Windows and FreeBSD.) Well, given that Windows has more TPC-C spots at top than any single combination, that remains a possibility if you have money...:-) Bye Shridhar -- Peers's Law: The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: