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.
