After a long battle with technology, josh@agliodbs.com (Josh Berkus), an earthling, wrote:
>> Other than the disks, I am curious what other people are using in
>> terms of the horsepower needed. The Quad server has been keeping
>> up, but we are expecting quite high loads in the near future, and I
>> am not sure if just by having the disks on a high-end storage will
>> do it.
>
> Do a performance analysis of RH9. My experience with RH on Xeon has
> been quite discouraging lately, and I've been recommending swapping
> stock kernels for the RH kernel.
By that, you mean that you recommend that RHAT kernels be replaced by
"stock" ones?
> Of course, if this is RHES, rather than the standard, then test &
> talk to RH instead.
If you're spending the money, better demand value from the vendor...
(And if RHAT is going to charge the big bucks, they'll have to provide
service...)
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
"I take it all back. Microsoft Exchange is RFC compliant.
RFC 1925, point three." -- Author unknown
