On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> No we haven't - not even remotely. At a rough count we'd need at least
>> another 17 servers (based on the current number of VMs), and we'd lose
>> the ability to move services between hardware quickly and easily. Oh,
>> and we'd have the management headache of dealing with a bunch more
>> hosting providers, as I doubt the current ones will give us that many
>> boxes.
>
> *cough*
>
> Yes I think they would.
Ya think? I'm struggling to see which of our 6 providers would pony up
more than a couple more machines.
> That being said :) I think its a mistake. It would be a complete waste of
> resources to go to dedicated machines. Some of the machines we have we
> hardly use at this point.
I think most are certainly used, but some require much fewer resources
than others.
--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com