> I'm not sure why going with CMD means this has to be on linux.
Because we are a Linux shop it has nothing to do with FBSD
as much as it has everything to do with Linux. As I said earlier
I can run FBSD, I prefer Linux.
Having one OS in the facility greatly decreases costs in maintenance,
administration etc.. and allows us to keep up to date on important
things easier.
> Surely
> someone there could get a box up and running FBSD to the point where
> someone remote could finish install and config. Or just ship a
> pre-installed box there...
Sure and I could easily do so myself but see above.
>
> affairs) seems folly. I guess I can see using jail if it makes failover
> easy (I've never used it myself, but I don't know of any reason why it'd
> add appreciable overhead),
Well done correctly a jail isn't any more useful then a standard
server, shared or otherwise. It is just a matter of documentation and
scripting.
> but trying to run something that big in a
> shared environment is pretty silly. If anything I'd say it's big enough
> that there should be more than one machine hosting it, such as database
> server, webserver, shell/SCM server.
It should be noted that Pgfoundry does not take a ton of resources
at this time. Although having it on a machine with almost 50 other
vms is quite silly.
> I know there's a lot to be said for everything running on the same OS,
> but the fact is pgFoundry has been sucking wind to various degrees for
> months now; if we can't fix that quickly while staying on FBSD and we've
> got offers to handle OS-level admin then we need to look at moving. What
> we can't do is let this drag on for another year.
That is kind of my point.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
