Peter,
> A requirement to have 4 machines at one site to perform a particular
> test is not a logical reason to reject the possibility of having, say,
> 20 machines at 5 sites to perform all kinds of tests, when the
> alternative is to have no machines at no sites.
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. Would that we were talking about 20
machines. Right now I'm twisting arms to get 5 servers and 4 JBODs, which
we need in the same location to make use of them. So we need these
initial machines in one place, as much as possible, to make use of them.
> If you can find someone to host everything, great, but you have in fact
> already rejected two machines because they are not at the right
> location, when I can see great use for those machines no matter where
> they are.
The peformance testing we can do without storage (drives) is very limited.
Currently, the only storage I have is located in the US. In my
experience, storage is the hardest thing to get donated so I don't really
expect to find some in Europe soon.
Gavin's machine is the exception becuase it comes with a 28-disk array.
Still, we could do even more with it if we had another machine or two in
that location.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
