Re: [mail] Re: Native Win32 sources - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

D'Arcy,

In production the database servers are seperate multi-processor machines
with mirrored disks linked via Gigabit ethernet to the app server.

In development I have people extremely familiar with MS, but not very hot
with Unix in any flavour, who are developing Java and PHP code which is then
passed into the QA phase where it's run on a replica of the production
environment.

My goal is to allow my developers to work on the platform they know (MS),
using as many of the aspects of the production environment as possible (JVM
version, PHP version, and hopefully database version), without needing to
buy each new developer two machines, and incur the overhead of them
familiarising themselves with a flavour of Unix.

Hope this helps you understand where I'm comming from,

Al.

----- Original Message -----
From: "D'Arcy J.M. Cain" <darcy@druid.net>
To: "Al Sutton" <al@alsutton.com>; "Lee Kindness" <lkindness@csl.co.uk>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers@PostgreSQL.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: [mail] Re: [HACKERS] Native Win32 sources


> On November 26, 2002 06:33 am, Al Sutton wrote:
> > I wouldn't go for 7.4 in production until after it's gone gold, but
being
> > able to cut the number of boxes per developer by giving them a Win32
native
> > version would save on everything from the overhead of getting the
> > developers familiar enough with Linux to be able to admin their own
> > systems, to cutting the network usage by having the DB and app on the
same
> > system, through to cutting the cost of electricity by only having one
box
> > per developer. It would also be a good way of testing 7.4 against our
app
> > so we can plan for an upgrade when it's released ;).
>
> If your database is of any significant size you probably want a separate
> database machine anyway.  We run NetBSD everywhere and could easily put
the
> apps on the database machine but choose not to.  We have 6 production
servers
> running various apps and web servers and they all talk to a central
database
> machine which has lots of RAM.  Forget about bandwidth.  Just get a
100MBit
> switch and plug everything into it.  Network bandwidth won't normally be
your
> bottleneck.  Memory and CPU will be.
>
> We actually have 4 database machines, 3 running transaction databases and
1
> with an rsynced copy for reporting purposes.  We use 3 networks, 1 for the
> app servers to talk to the Internet, 1 for the app servers to talk to the
> databases and one for the databases to talk amongst themselves.
>
> Even for development we keep a separate database machine that developers
all
> use.  They run whatever they want - we have people using NetBSD, Linux and
> Windows - but they work on one database which is tuned for the purpose.
They
> can even create their own databases on that system if they want for local
> testing.
>
> --
> D'Arcy J.M. Cain <darcy@{druid|vex}.net>   |  Democracy is three wolves
> http://www.druid.net/darcy/                |  and a sheep voting on
> +1 416 425 1212     (DoD#0082)    (eNTP)   |  what's for dinner.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>