On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:45:56AM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> Josh Berkus wrote:
> > JD,
> >
> >> A. Command Prompt has physical access to its location
> >> B. Command Prompt has tons of bandwidth
> >> C. Command Prompt has power
> >> D. Command Prompt has proven a reliable provider
> >> E. Command Prompt loves the PostgreSQL community ;)
> >> F. We would probably have to charge a bit for power cause we are talking
> >> about some serious machines.
> >> G. We are close to Mark Wong as well
> >
> > OK, I'm sold, barring objections from the donors. Anyone?
> >
>
> How much of Command Prompt have access to the location? We've been
> waiting for a number of weeks to get the new pgFoundry machine plugged
> in and switched on because only JD had access to the DC and he was busy
> preparing for OSCON.
>
> I don't object in principle, I'd just like some reassurance that we
> won't see the perf machines lying idle or awaiting maintenance for the
> same or similar reasons.
Yeah, that's especially important given the talk about being able to easily
move disk array between servers and such. While we don't need
30-minute-on-site committment, we do need some level of commitment for
something like that.
//Magnus
