> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mitch Pirtle [mailto:mitch.pirtle@gmail.com]
> Sent: 03 November 2004 16:58
> To: Alexey Borzov
> Cc: Oleg Bartunov; Marc G. Fournier; Dave Page;
> pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Inadequate hosting for www.postgresql.org
>
> And several people have offered over the last few months,
> including myself. I am thinking about a dual xeon with 1 GB
> RAM that has a load average of 0.01... Nightly backups too,
> with disk a non-factor. I asked about bandwidth usage
> estimates but never got that far :-(
>
> This I simply do not understand. If there is a need for
> dedicated hardware, and it is being offered, then why is it
> not being accepted?
> Didn't CommandPrompt also offer dedicated hardware?
>
> Not wanting to start another heated debate, just wanting to
> understand what the deal is - as this topic keeps getting
> regurgitated without a conclusion.
The problem is not the hardware from what Marc & I can tell - the
current hardware (a dual PIII with 4GB) is just ticking along with
little load, and the current website performs quite nicely. What we seem
to have is a php performance issue that we haven't tracked down yet
which only noticably affects the beta site. Yes, we can throw more
hardware at it if it really comes down to it (I can also rustle
something pretty nippy up), but it makes more sense to figure out why
we're having this problem in the first place.
Your offer is noted and appreciated though :-)
Regards, Dave
