Thread: Perpetuating the myth...annoying
http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=319 Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate.
On Mar 31, 2004, at 4:44 AM, Jacob Hanson wrote: > http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=319 > > Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, > significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's > faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the > article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster > than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate. > Hi Jacob, I have been using SQlite in fact we offer it on dotgeek together with postgresql in the free package for developers. The significantly faster is irrelevant because SQLite has a single point of access / failure which make it interesting only for small applications. Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I can put the servers, but I have little experience on running a benchmark. If someone is willing to help I will grant him access and we can end up with some clean results and a nice article on dotgeek with something effective like "PostgreSQL is faster then MySQL: Here's why" I think it will spice it all up. Till now we have around 300 PHP developers that started to use PostgreSQL on dotgeek and porting their application from mysql to postgresql. Looks promising ;) PHP-PostgreSQL Advocacy team http://dotgeek.org gurugeek att php dot net david at postgresql ddoot org $dsn = 'pgsql://world:most_advanced@localhost/open_source_database';
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Jacob Hanson wrote: > http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=319 > > Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, > significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's > faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the > article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster > than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate. I can confirm that SQLite is faster than either MySQL or PostgreSQL when using Bacula. I'm working on improving the PostgreSQL. -- Dan Langille - BSDCan: http://www.bsdcan.org/
>> >> >> We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this: >> >> >> D. Damaging Use. >> >> >> >> The MySQL AB Marks may not be used in a manner or with respect to >> products that will decrease the value of the MySQL AB Marks or >> otherwise impair or damage MySQL AB's brand integrity, reputation or >> goodwill, including (without limitation) use in a manner that is >> unethical, offensive, disparaging, defamatory, illegal or in bad taste. >> >> > > Not sure, running a benchmark is not a misusage of their trademark. try > to google mysql vs pgsql or the other way around..some other people did > some benchmarks already > isn't it ? IANAL but I think it would depend on how it was worded and whether or not they wanted to get ugly about it. I am actually surprised they haven't gone after the sql-info.de guys. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > >> Sincerely, >> >> Joshua D. Drake >> >> >> >>> I think it will spice it all up. Till now we have around 300 PHP >>> developers that started to use PostgreSQL on dotgeek and >>> porting their application from mysql to postgresql. Looks promising ;) >>> PHP-PostgreSQL Advocacy team http://dotgeek.org >>> gurugeek att php dot net david at postgresql ddoot org >>> $dsn = 'pgsql://world:most_advanced@localhost/open_source_database'; >>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >> >> >> >> -- >> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC >> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. >> +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com >> Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL >> <jd.vcf> -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Apr 5, 2004, at 10:16 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > D >> Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I >> can put the servers, but I have little experience >> on running a benchmark. If someone is willing to help I will grant >> him access and we can end up with some clean results >> and a nice article on dotgeek with something effective like >> "PostgreSQL is faster then MySQL: Here's why" > > We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this: > > > D. Damaging Use. > > > > The MySQL AB Marks may not be used in a manner or with respect to > products that will decrease the value of the MySQL AB Marks or > otherwise impair or damage MySQL AB's brand integrity, reputation or > goodwill, including (without limitation) use in a manner that is > unethical, offensive, disparaging, defamatory, illegal or in bad > taste. > > Not sure, running a benchmark is not a misusage of their trademark. try to google mysql vs pgsql or the other way around..some other people did some benchmarks already isn't it ? > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > >> I think it will spice it all up. Till now we have around 300 PHP >> developers that started to use PostgreSQL on dotgeek and >> porting their application from mysql to postgresql. Looks promising ;) >> PHP-PostgreSQL Advocacy team http://dotgeek.org >> gurugeek att php dot net david at postgresql ddoot org >> $dsn = 'pgsql://world:most_advanced@localhost/open_source_database'; >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC > Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. > +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com > Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL > <jd.vcf>
D > > Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I can > put the servers, but I have little experience > on running a benchmark. If someone is willing to help I will grant him > access and we can end up with some clean results > and a nice article on dotgeek with something effective like "PostgreSQL > is faster then MySQL: Here's why" We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this: D. Damaging Use. The MySQL AB Marks may not be used in a manner or with respect to products that will decrease the value of the MySQL AB Marks or otherwise impair or damage MySQL AB's brand integrity, reputation or goodwill, including (without limitation) use in a manner that is unethical, offensive, disparaging, defamatory, illegal or in bad taste. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > I think it will spice it all up. Till now we have around 300 PHP > developers that started to use PostgreSQL on dotgeek and > porting their application from mysql to postgresql. Looks promising ;) > > PHP-PostgreSQL Advocacy team http://dotgeek.org > gurugeek att php dot net david at postgresql ddoot org > $dsn = 'pgsql://world:most_advanced@localhost/open_source_database'; > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> > >> > >> We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this: > >> > >> > >> D. Damaging Use. > >> > >> > >> > >> The MySQL AB Marks may not be used in a manner or with respect to > >> products that will decrease the value of the MySQL AB Marks or > >> otherwise impair or damage MySQL AB's brand integrity, reputation or > >> goodwill, including (without limitation) use in a manner that is > >> unethical, offensive, disparaging, defamatory, illegal or in bad taste. > >> > >> > > > > Not sure, running a benchmark is not a misusage of their trademark. try > > to google mysql vs pgsql or the other way around..some other people did > > some benchmarks already > > isn't it ? > > > IANAL but I think it would depend on how it was worded and whether or > not they wanted to get ugly about it. > > I am actually surprised they haven't gone after the sql-info.de guys. Here's a link from the international trademark association: http://www.inta.org/info/faqsU.html The short answer is that it would appear to be in this paragraph, which I quote here for convenience: QUOTE: WHEN CAN I USE ANOTHER'S TRADEMARK WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT? As a general matter, it is advisable to obtain the consent of a trademark owner before proceeding with use of their mark. Trademark law, however, does permit the use of another's mark (whether registered or unregistered) without their consent if the use of the mark is made in good faith for the purpose of merely describing the goods or services to which the mark relates or to accurately indicate compatibility with another's goods or services. Relevant considerations for determining whether use of another's mark constitutes "fair use" include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Bad faith. Intentionally using another's mark for the purpose of benefiting from the good will associated with the mark is not a permissible use of another person's mark without their consent. How the mark is used. Use of another person's mark should not be made for the purpose of promoting one's own goods or services without their consent. Visual placement and prominence of the other mark can bear upon whether use of another's mark may be construed as being for one's own promotional purposes. Confusion by consumers. Some uses of another's mark can suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the mark's owner and can confuse consumers into believing that there is an association between you and the owner of the mark. This is not a permissible use of another's mark without their consent. ENDQUOTE: Basically, as long as no one is trying to "ride the MySQL wave" or confuse consumers it should be ok to use it. I.e. just using someone's trademark when referring to their product is not misuse. If you were lying or trying to mislead people, then it's a possibility you could be in some kind of trouble, but as long as we're just saying "we tested MySQL against Postgresql and here's what we found." We should be ok.
>>> Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I
{snip}
>> We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this:
I wouldn't any spend time worrying about this. Analysts and reviewers write
bad things about products all the time and aren't held liable for any of
this nonsense.
I'd do the benchmark and publish the results, properly attributing any
trademarks that belong to MySQL AB. If someone at MySQL really gets
annoyed, then (a) hire a lawyer, or (b) change all of the references to "the
open source database available at www.mysql.com".
-andy
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, David Costa wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2004, at 4:44 AM, Jacob Hanson wrote: > > > http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=319 > > > > Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, > > significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's > > faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the > > article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster > > than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate. > > > > Hi Jacob, > I have been using SQlite in fact we offer it on dotgeek together with > postgresql in the free > package for developers. The significantly faster is irrelevant because > SQLite has a single point of access / failure > which make it interesting only for small applications. > > Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I can > put the servers, but I have little experience > on running a benchmark. If someone is willing to help I will grant him > access and we can end up with some clean results > and a nice article on dotgeek with something effective like "PostgreSQL > is faster then MySQL: Here's why" > > I think it will spice it all up. Till now we have around 300 PHP > developers that started to use PostgreSQL on dotgeek and > porting their application from mysql to postgresql. Looks promising ;) I think that if we are going to benchmark the two, and I'm all for it, we should benchmark them running something fairly standard, like the OSDL tests. And MySQL should be using innodb tables for everything, since postgresql pretty much always carries the load of running mvcc and write ahead logging and transactions for everything it does.
Andrew Payne wrote:
>
> >>> Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I
>
> {snip}
>
> >> We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this:
>
> I wouldn't any spend time worrying about this. Analysts and reviewers write
> bad things about products all the time and aren't held liable for any of
> this nonsense.
>
> I'd do the benchmark and publish the results, properly attributing any
> trademarks that belong to MySQL AB. If someone at MySQL really gets
> annoyed, then (a) hire a lawyer, or (b) change all of the references to "the
> open source database available at www.mysql.com".
Better yet, do the benchmark, and if they send you a cease-and-desist
letter, we can post it on our web site. They are usually quite amusing. :-)
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
>>http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=319 >> >>Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, >>significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's >>faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the >>article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster >>than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate. "faster" for simple selects with one where clause maybe. However, SQLLite is documented that it can ONLY USE ONE INDEX PER QUERY. Go figure. Chris
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I > We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this: Trademark law only says that you cannot use someone else's trademark to label a similar product. Nothing there can stop you from using the product for any purpose including running benchmarks, or from reporting facts or opinions or lies about the product. That is a matter of copyright law, press regulations and/or the criminal code.
On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > D > > > > Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I can > > put the servers, but I have little experience > > on running a benchmark. If someone is willing to help I will grant him > > access and we can end up with some clean results > > and a nice article on dotgeek with something effective like "PostgreSQL > > is faster then MySQL: Here's why" > > We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this: > > > D. Damaging Use. > > > > The MySQL AB Marks may not be used in a manner or with respect to > products that will decrease the value of the MySQL AB Marks or otherwise > impair or damage MySQL AB's brand integrity, reputation or goodwill, > including (without limitation) use in a manner that is unethical, > offensive, disparaging, defamatory, illegal or in bad taste. This runs in the face of 'fair comment' law established in most democracies. However, how fair the comment is often depends on how well paid your lawyer is. :-(. Gavin
On Apr 5, 2004, at 11:13 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > IANAL but I think it would depend on how it was worded and whether or > not they wanted to get ugly about it. > > I am actually surprised they haven't gone after the sql-info.de guys. > I checked the sql-info.de guys and frankly their strategy is less then impressive. If you use terms like "gotchas" and mix and match features with some irrelevant facts (their financing has nothing to do with their product) you will only make them more popular. I do have a law degree ( this doesn't mean I know anything more then you or anyone else here in Intellectual properties law, in fact my specialization was in tax law) and from what I saw it would be probably not a good business for MySQL AB to sue the sql-info.de guys. Sometimes I am amused by all the debacle on licensing because, from a legal stand point, the main issue is enforceability and making a legal action viable. That said I would have never published something like that. I was thinking about something fair. What do I mean by fair ? Our latest version..not the 7.3 used here http://www.mysql.com/information/features.html ;) Cheers David Costa > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > > > >>> Sincerely, >>> >>> Joshua D. Drake >>> >>> >>> >>>> I think it will spice it all up. Till now we have around 300 PHP >>>> developers that started to use PostgreSQL on dotgeek and >>>> porting their application from mysql to postgresql. Looks promising >>>> ;) >>>> PHP-PostgreSQL Advocacy team http://dotgeek.org >>>> gurugeek att php dot net david at postgresql ddoot org >>>> $dsn = 'pgsql://world:most_advanced@localhost/open_source_database'; >>>> ---------------------------(end of >>>> broadcast)--------------------------- >>>> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >>>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that >>>> your >>>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC >>> Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. >>> +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com >>> Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL >>> <jd.vcf> > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC > Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. > +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com > Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL > <jd.vcf>
On Apr 5, 2004, at 8:00 PM, Dan Langille wrote: >> >> >> Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, >> significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's >> faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the >> article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster >> than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate. > > I can confirm that SQLite is faster than either MySQL or PostgreSQL > when > using Bacula. I'm working on improving the PostgreSQL. Hi Dan! I am sure SQLite can be faster, but its not comparable with either MySQL or PostgreSQL so is this text based "db" http://txtsql.sourceforge.net/ I do have SQLite actively used in a number of sites (e.g. collegelinux.org) and frankly, for an end user standpoint specially of a size that might be interested in SQLite, there is really no humanly noticeable speed difference IMHO. When you talk about speed the average PHP developer is thinking about his guestbook or forum becoming slower with Pgsql and this is not true ;) Thanks David > > -- > Dan Langille - BSDCan: http://www.bsdcan.org/ > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
On Apr 6, 2004, at 1:02 AM, scott.marlowe wrote: > > I think that if we are going to benchmark the two, and I'm all for it, > we > should benchmark them running something fairly standard, like the OSDL > tests. And MySQL should be using innodb tables for everything, since > postgresql pretty much always carries the load of running mvcc and > write > ahead logging and transactions for everything it does. > Let's do it ;) David Costa
On Apr 6, 2004, at 1:46 AM, Gavin Sherry wrote: > This runs in the face of 'fair comment' law established in most > democracies. However, how fair the comment is often depends on how well > paid your lawyer is. :-(. > I would be ready to publish a real benchmark but not a flame or anything close to it. The idea is presenting the facts and adding some real life examples e.g. people can see our Phpbb running Postgresql (http://dotgeek.org/forums) and compare it with another phpbb installation. Once again, speed has the wrong meaning to many people. I received a number of emails from our current hosted developers (within the PHP 5 / PostgreSQL free hosting initiative) and everyone seems fairly impressed by PostgreSQL. AKA they expected something very slow and this isn't the case. Regards, David Costa, Dotgeek.org PHP-PostgreSQL Advocacy team http://dotgeek.org gurugeek att php dot net david at postgresql ddoot org $dsn = 'pgsql://world:most_advanced@localhost/open_source_database';
On Apr 6, 2004, at 3:46 AM, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: >>> > > "faster" for simple selects with one where clause maybe. However, > SQLLite is documented that it can ONLY USE ONE INDEX PER QUERY. Go > figure. > > Chris > This is the point. People write faster and many developers don't understand the difference. I have seen a lot of PHP/MySQL application and yet I have to find one which runs faster on MySQL / slower on PostgreSQL from a "humanly noticeable" standpoint. Yet the faster catch is a good marketing tool. > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
On Apr 5, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>> Just an idea, why don't we run a postgresql vs mysql benchmark ? I >> We might get in trouble with their (MySQL) trademark guys with this: > > Trademark law only says that you cannot use someone else's trademark to > label a similar product. Nothing there can stop you from using the > product for any purpose including running benchmarks, or from reporting > facts or opinions or lies about the product. That is a matter of > copyright law, press regulations and/or the criminal code. > Commercial database products, such as Oracle and MS SQL Server get around this by making it a part of their license that you cannot publish benchmarks without their approval. Since you can get MySQL under the GPL, then their only protection in this matter is trademark (and I guess, libel if they wanted to get nasty), which is, IMHO & IANAL, much weaker protection. Adam Ruth
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 04:19, David Costa wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2004, at 1:02 AM, scott.marlowe wrote: > > > > > I think that if we are going to benchmark the two, and I'm all for it, > > we > > should benchmark them running something fairly standard, like the OSDL > > tests. And MySQL should be using innodb tables for everything, since > > postgresql pretty much always carries the load of running mvcc and > > write > > ahead logging and transactions for everything it does. > > > > Let's do it ;) > One potential problem... I don't think that my$ql can actually handle the osdl tests. On the bright side iirc the osdl folks switched to studying postgresql instead of sapdb (aka max$ql) because they could not get the performance they needed from sapdb, so you might be able to do a comparison there. But this has always been a problem with benchmarking my$ql with postgresql... any test complex enough to show off postgresql's capabilities tends to cause my$ql to fall over... not saying you shouldn't do it, just saying finding a good benchmark might be tricky. BTW David, I'm sure you've seen http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3?page=1 right? Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > IANAL but I think it would depend on how it was worded and whether or > not they wanted to get ugly about it. > > I am actually surprised they haven't gone after the sql-info.de guys. But wouldn't it make a great (I am not encouraging this) press story for someone with commercial interests against them ? A classic "CompanyX tries to gag comparisons" - when some studios tried to stop film reviewers making negative comments by enforcing "license" conditions, they were slammed in the media. Peter
Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Trademark law only says that you cannot use someone else's trademark > to label a similar product. Nothing there can stop you from using the > product for any purpose including running benchmarks, or from > reporting facts or opinions or lies about the product. That is a > matter of copyright law, press regulations and/or the criminal code. I think the issue raised was that you may not be permitted, under their software license, to use the software if the activity would be seen as detrimental to their trademark - not the use of the trademark in any publication post-benchmark etc. Peter
On Apr 6, 2004, at 4:05 PM, Robert Treat wrote: > > One potential problem... I don't think that my$ql can actually handle > the osdl tests. On the bright side iirc the osdl folks switched to > studying postgresql instead of sapdb (aka max$ql) because they could > not > get the performance they needed from sapdb, so you might be able to do > a > comparison there. But this has always been a problem with benchmarking > my$ql with postgresql... any test complex enough to show off > postgresql's capabilities tends to cause my$ql to fall over... not > saying you shouldn't do it, just saying finding a good benchmark might > be tricky. Very true. I admittedly know very little on benchmarking but I was thinking with something combined with practical real life tests e.g. testing with real popular php applications for example something which runs on both (e.g. Phpbb ) and a sample application. Sometimes the professional tests have little real life meaning for a developer. Of course they might be a way to run some other benchmarks. When I come across to some benchmarks like this one http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance where they used PostgreSQL 7.2.3 on Win2000 well...it makes be think what the average PHP developer will get out of it. > > BTW David, I'm sure you've seen > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3?page=1 right? yes I did but is not very new, this is why a new test with the latest pgsql might dissipate the speed myth. I have used MySQL and SQLite too but event with relatively big applications and a load of traffic I can't yet see any speed difference with PostgreSQL. Secondly, it's not all about speed. Data integrity should come first IMHO. > Regards, David Costa, Dotgeek.org PHP-PostgreSQL Advocacy team http://dotgeek.org gurugeek att php dot net david at postgresql ddoot org $dsn = 'pgsql://world:most_advanced@localhost/open_source_database';
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 10:15, Peter Galbavy wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > Trademark law only says that you cannot use someone else's trademark
> > to label a similar product. Nothing there can stop you from using the
> > product for any purpose including running benchmarks, or from
> > reporting facts or opinions or lies about the product. That is a
> > matter of copyright law, press regulations and/or the criminal code.
>
> I think the issue raised was that you may not be permitted, under their
> software license, to use the software if the activity would be seen as
> detrimental to their trademark - not the use of the trademark in any
> publication post-benchmark etc.
>
And that's probably true if you acquire their software under their
commercial license, but if you license it via the gpl, then that doesn't
hold up.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 10:32, David Costa wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2004, at 4:05 PM, Robert Treat wrote: > > > > One potential problem... I don't think that my$ql can actually handle > > the osdl tests. On the bright side iirc the osdl folks switched to > > studying postgresql instead of sapdb (aka max$ql) because they could > > not > > get the performance they needed from sapdb, so you might be able to do > > a > > comparison there. But this has always been a problem with benchmarking > > my$ql with postgresql... any test complex enough to show off > > postgresql's capabilities tends to cause my$ql to fall over... not > > saying you shouldn't do it, just saying finding a good benchmark might > > be tricky. > > Very true. I admittedly know very little on benchmarking but I was > thinking with something combined with practical real life tests > e.g. testing with real popular php applications for example something > which runs on both (e.g. Phpbb ) and a sample application. > > Sometimes the professional tests have little real life meaning for a > developer. Of course they might be a way to run some > other benchmarks. > > When I come across to some benchmarks like this one > http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance where they used > PostgreSQL 7.2.3 on Win2000 well...it makes be think what the average > PHP developer will get out of it. > > > > > > BTW David, I'm sure you've seen > > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3?page=1 right? > > > yes I did but is not very new, this is why a new test with the latest > pgsql might dissipate the speed myth. > > I have used MySQL and SQLite too but event with relatively big > applications and a load of traffic I can't yet > see any speed difference with PostgreSQL. Secondly, it's not all about > speed. Data integrity should come first IMHO. > Incidentally, if you haven't read the blog entry in this weeks weekly news, give it a spin; shows comparison times on my$ql and postgresql php connection times... Robert Treat -- Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Monday, April 5, 2004, 12:00:59 PM, you wrote: > On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Jacob Hanson wrote: >> http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=319 >> >> Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, >> significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's >> faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the >> article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster >> than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate. > I can confirm that SQLite is faster than either MySQL or PostgreSQL when > using Bacula. I'm working on improving the PostgreSQL. Yeah, I'm sure it is. I was concerned with the article giving additional weight to the 'MySQL is much faster than Postgres' thinking. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Jacob
On 6 Apr, Robert Treat wrote: > On Tue, 2004-04-06 at 04:19, David Costa wrote: >> >> On Apr 6, 2004, at 1:02 AM, scott.marlowe wrote: >> >> > >> > I think that if we are going to benchmark the two, and I'm all for it, >> > we >> > should benchmark them running something fairly standard, like the OSDL >> > tests. And MySQL should be using innodb tables for everything, since >> > postgresql pretty much always carries the load of running mvcc and >> > write >> > ahead logging and transactions for everything it does. >> > >> >> Let's do it ;) >> > > One potential problem... I don't think that my$ql can actually handle > the osdl tests. On the bright side iirc the osdl folks switched to > studying postgresql instead of sapdb (aka max$ql) because they could not > get the performance they needed from sapdb, so you might be able to do a > comparison there. But this has always been a problem with benchmarking > my$ql with postgresql... any test complex enough to show off > postgresql's capabilities tends to cause my$ql to fall over... not > saying you shouldn't do it, just saying finding a good benchmark might > be tricky. > > BTW David, I'm sure you've seen > http://www.phpbuilder.com/columns/tim20001112.php3?page=1 right? One of the most important reasons for switching to PostgreSQL was that, for whatever reason, the SAPDB folks didn't really offer the support we were hoping for. Peter Zaitsev has told me they are porting DBT-2 to work with MySQL, but I haven't heard from him in a while. I don't believe it's too hard to port it, but we don't have the time here. If someone here wanted to give it a shot, I can definitely aid what needs to be done. A quick search on google shows it might be done: http://seclists.org/lists/linux-kernel/2004/Mar/0818.html Mark
+-le 05/04/2004 14:00 -0400, Dan Langille a dit : | On Tue, 30 Mar 2004, Jacob Hanson wrote: | |> http://www.oetrends.com/news.php?action=view_record&idnum=319 |> |> Article discussing PHP5 says SQLite is "typically faster than MySQL, |> significantly faster than PostgreSQL". While I don't doubt it's |> faster at what it does (with it's small, focused feature-set), the |> article perpuates the 'Postgres is slow' and 'MySQL is much faster |> than Postgres' thinking that is no longer accurate. | | I can confirm that SQLite is faster than either MySQL or PostgreSQL when | using Bacula. I'm working on improving the PostgreSQL. On the Bacula side, I'm keeping sqlite because it's "one file", nothing to restore beside that if (when) it (will) crashes. -- Mathieu Arnold
* David Costa <geeks@dotgeek.org> wrote: <snip> > I am sure SQLite can be faster, but its not comparable with either > MySQL or PostgreSQL > so is this text based "db" http://txtsql.sourceforge.net/ Ah, I'll have a look at this. I'm using "flat" text tables in some web applications. If I can edit the txtsql database by hand, I'll probably switch to it :) <snip> > When you talk about speed the average PHP developer is thinking about > his guestbook or forum becoming slower with Pgsql > and this is not true ;) Well, this comes (better: *came*) from the issue that pgsql is a little bit slower on connection startup than mysql (is it still ?). Some people say, that comes *because* mysql is MT and pgsql is MP, but IMHO this is not really true. I already talked about this issue here. We could implement some kind of preforking or backends processing more then one connection subsequently. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
* David Costa <geeks@dotgeek.org> wrote: <snip> > This is the point. People write faster and many developers don't > understand the difference. I have seen a lot of PHP/MySQL application > and yet I have to find one which runs > faster on MySQL / slower on PostgreSQL from a "humanly noticeable" > standpoint. A serious comparison starts at the application and its use-cases, i.e. how many data is stored, which datatypes, which kind of queries are typically used, etc, etc. Saying "A is faster than B" is just too simple. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
* Dan Langille <dan@langille.org> wrote: <snip> > I can confirm that SQLite is faster than either MySQL or PostgreSQL when > using Bacula. I'm working on improving the PostgreSQL. In which situations did you notice that ? I'd be interested in an in-deep comparsion. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
* markw@osdl.org <markw@osdl.org> wrote: <snip> > One of the most important reasons for switching to PostgreSQL was that, > for whatever reason, the SAPDB folks didn't really offer the support we > were hoping for. Could you please state what things exactly you expect ? I'd like to set up some RDBMS comparison which copes features and performance as well as software and support. cu -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt == metux IT service phone: +49 36207 519931 www: http://www.metux.de/ fax: +49 36207 519932 email: contact@metux.de cellphone: +49 174 7066481 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- DSL ab 0 Euro. -- statische IP -- UUCP -- Hosting -- Webshops -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------
On 6/3/2004 4:28 PM, Enrico Weigelt wrote: > * David Costa <geeks@dotgeek.org> wrote: > > <snip> >> I am sure SQLite can be faster, but its not comparable with either >> MySQL or PostgreSQL >> so is this text based "db" http://txtsql.sourceforge.net/ > Ah, I'll have a look at this. > I'm using "flat" text tables in some web applications. > If I can edit the txtsql database by hand, I'll probably switch to it :) > > <snip> >> When you talk about speed the average PHP developer is thinking about >> his guestbook or forum becoming slower with Pgsql >> and this is not true ;) > Well, this comes (better: *came*) from the issue that pgsql is a little > bit slower on connection startup than mysql (is it still ?). Some people > say, that comes *because* mysql is MT and pgsql is MP, but IMHO this is > not really true. > > I already talked about this issue here. We could implement some kind > of preforking or backends processing more then one connection subsequently. Or we could just encourage people to use what's availabe. Pgpool has more advantages for PHP applications than just that anyway. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
scott.marlowe wrote: >I think that if we are going to benchmark the two, and I'm all for it, we >should benchmark them running something fairly standard, like the OSDL >tests. And MySQL should be using innodb tables for everything, since >postgresql pretty much always carries the load of running mvcc and write >ahead logging and transactions for everything it does. > The other way, well not as good of course, would be to test PostgreSQL fsync turned off against MySQL MyISAM. That wouldn't still be complitely fair (unless there is a way to turn off implicit transactions of PostgreSQL) though but the results could be of interest in comparing PostgreSQL with default MySQL setup. Kaarel
On 6/10/2004 7:10 AM, Kaarel wrote: > scott.marlowe wrote: > >>I think that if we are going to benchmark the two, and I'm all for it, we >>should benchmark them running something fairly standard, like the OSDL >>tests. And MySQL should be using innodb tables for everything, since >>postgresql pretty much always carries the load of running mvcc and write >>ahead logging and transactions for everything it does. >> > > The other way, well not as good of course, would be to test PostgreSQL > fsync turned off against MySQL MyISAM. That wouldn't still be complitely > fair (unless there is a way to turn off implicit transactions of > PostgreSQL) though but the results could be of interest in comparing > PostgreSQL with default MySQL setup. I have signed up for a project on PgFoundry (waiting for approval) to make my PHP implementation of TPC-W available. It is ready ported to MySQL 4.1.1 and runs of course on top of PostgreSQL >= 7.4. It does take the differences in database functionality into account. When running on PostgreSQL, it uses set returning stored procedures. The same functionality is implemented in PHP of course when running on MySQL. This is completely according to the TPC-W specifications since the combination of Web Server(s) and Database is defined as System Under Test and what counts is the response time to HTTP requests, not how fast a simple select can spit out a row. The concurrency and transactional requirements of that test suite make InnoDB tables required anyway, and using pgpool PostgreSQL 7.4 currently scales better than MySQL 4.1.1. But I am no MySQL expert, so there might be more tuning or some query optimization possible ... right now the two are close enough together. I think this is an interesting test, because it uses what a broad variety of MySQL based applications are written in - PHP. And it compares both databases on a fair level, by implementing the requested business logic with what is available, instead of tayloring the features or tests to the limited capabilities of the database. The only thing missing to be 100% spec compliant woult be the remote payment gateway emulator (credit card authorization simulation). That would be some external server the PHP application during the order processing has to communicate with via SSL. Darcy Buskermolen did get it running and I have it currently in a longterm test to check Slony Replication and will soon use it to develop semi-automatic failover procedures for webservers using pgpool. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Jan Wieck wrote: > I have signed up for a project on PgFoundry (waiting for approval) to > make my PHP implementation of TPC-W available. It is ready ported to > MySQL 4.1.1 and runs of course on top of PostgreSQL >= 7.4. Sounds great. It seems to me that this should be one of the better test cases to compare PostgreSQL and MySQL, but not only that. I think it will also be good for testing a complete setup for performance changes, e.g. when upgrading from PostgreSQL 7.4 to 7.5. I am looking forward to your release. Btw., the project on pgFoundry is already online. ;-) Best Regards, Michael Paesold
On 6/15/2004 11:33 AM, Michael Paesold wrote: > Jan Wieck wrote: >> I have signed up for a project on PgFoundry (waiting for approval) to >> make my PHP implementation of TPC-W available. It is ready ported to >> MySQL 4.1.1 and runs of course on top of PostgreSQL >= 7.4. > > Sounds great. It seems to me that this should be one of the better test > cases to compare PostgreSQL and MySQL, but not only that. I think it will > also be good for testing a complete setup for performance changes, e.g. when > upgrading from PostgreSQL 7.4 to 7.5. > > I am looking forward to your release. > > Btw., the project on pgFoundry is already online. ;-) The code is there now. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
Hi, it seems to me, that anonymous cvs access to pgFoundry is not working, or is it just a problem with this project? (tcw-w-php) $ cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.pgfoundry.org:/cvsroot/tpc-w-php co tcpw-benchmark gives me a "initgroups failed: Invalid argument" This seems to come from the server, reading last strace lines... read(4, "error 0 initgroups failed: Inval"..., 4096) = 44 write(2, "initgroups failed: Invalid argum"..., 36initgroups failed: Invalid argument) = 36 Does it work for anyone? Also, pgFoundry seems extremly slow, compared to other postgresql sites. Best Regards, Michael Paesold -- +++ Jetzt WLAN-Router f�r alle DSL-Einsteiger und Wechsler +++ GMX DSL-Powertarife zudem 3 Monate gratis* http://www.gmx.net/dsl
Confirming it, also the slowness. sql2pg developer wants to move it to sourceforge so we can work easier on it. -- Marius Andreiana Galuna - Solutii Linux in Romania http://www.galuna.ro
Michael, > it seems to me, that anonymous cvs access to pgFoundry is not working, or > is it just a problem with this project? (tcw-w-php) Damn, I thought we'd fixed this. Will check. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Hello, I am also considering moving plPerlNG to SourceForge. Although I believe that pgFoundry is a good idea, there just isn't enough bandwidth and hardware support behind the project to make it usable. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake Marius Andreiana wrote: > Confirming it, also the slowness. sql2pg developer wants to move it to > sourceforge so we can work easier on it. > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Michael Paesold wrote: > Hi, > > it seems to me, that anonymous cvs access to pgFoundry is not working, or is > it just a problem with this project? (tcw-w-php) > > $ cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.pgfoundry.org:/cvsroot/tpc-w-php co > tcpw-benchmark > gives me a > "initgroups failed: Invalid argument" > > This seems to come from the server, reading last strace lines... > read(4, "error 0 initgroups failed: Inval"..., 4096) = 44 > write(2, "initgroups failed: Invalid argum"..., 36initgroups failed: Invalid > argument) = 36 > > Does it work for anyone? CC'ng in those that administrator that stuff ... first report I've seen go by that there is a problem with anon-cvs ... > Also, pgFoundry seems extremly slow, compared to other postgresql sites. Should be fixed soon ... we're ordering in a new Dual-Athlon (first of many planned) in order to reduce the load on the servers ... hopefully the order will go out sometime next week, and then just as long as it takes to get it south ... already have the space for it reserved ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Hello, > > I am also considering moving plPerlNG to SourceForge. Although I believe > that pgFoundry is a good idea, there just isn't enough bandwidth and > hardware support behind the project to make it usable. bandwidth related, I'm suspecting that alot of the problem is the Linksys switch we threw in when we first setup the servers ... at the time, I didn't know that it was a bad idea :( If you do a trace to the servers, you'll see a packet loss between 200.46.204.1 and the server itself that just *shouldn't* be there. Apparently, on an unmanaged switch, if you try and hard code the ethernet on the server to 100baseT/full duplex, the switch, for some *stupid* reason, will downgrade itself to half duplex, so you get a whack of errors ... right now, as a result, we're running half-duplex on the server(s), which, of course, results in high collisions *sigh* We're ordering in a new managed Dell Procurve switch next week, to get that issue fixed ... As to the hardware support itself ... see my other email ... > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > > > Marius Andreiana wrote: >> Confirming it, also the slowness. sql2pg developer wants to move it to >> sourceforge so we can work easier on it. >> > > > -- > Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC > Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. > +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com > Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > I am also considering moving plPerlNG to SourceForge. Although I believe > > that pgFoundry is a good idea, there just isn't enough bandwidth and > > hardware support behind the project to make it usable. > > bandwidth related, I'm suspecting that alot of the problem is the Linksys > switch we threw in when we first setup the servers ... at the time, I > didn't know that it was a bad idea :( If you do a trace to the servers, > you'll see a packet loss between 200.46.204.1 and the server itself that > just *shouldn't* be there. Apparently, on an unmanaged switch, if you try > and hard code the ethernet on the server to 100baseT/full duplex, the > switch, for some *stupid* reason, will downgrade itself to half duplex, so > you get a whack of errors ... right now, as a result, we're running > half-duplex on the server(s), which, of course, results in high collisions > *sigh* We're ordering in a new managed Dell Procurve switch next week, to > get that issue fixed ... > > As to the hardware support itself ... see my other email ... Marc, I think you need voodoo dolls on your computers or some exorcism ritual. Come to think of it, the problems mostly started when moving the servers to Central America. Hmmm. :-) -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am also considering moving plPerlNG to SourceForge. Although I believe >>> that pgFoundry is a good idea, there just isn't enough bandwidth and >>> hardware support behind the project to make it usable. >> >> bandwidth related, I'm suspecting that alot of the problem is the Linksys >> switch we threw in when we first setup the servers ... at the time, I >> didn't know that it was a bad idea :( If you do a trace to the servers, >> you'll see a packet loss between 200.46.204.1 and the server itself that >> just *shouldn't* be there. Apparently, on an unmanaged switch, if you try >> and hard code the ethernet on the server to 100baseT/full duplex, the >> switch, for some *stupid* reason, will downgrade itself to half duplex, so >> you get a whack of errors ... right now, as a result, we're running >> half-duplex on the server(s), which, of course, results in high collisions >> *sigh* We're ordering in a new managed Dell Procurve switch next week, to >> get that issue fixed ... >> >> As to the hardware support itself ... see my other email ... > > Marc, I think you need voodoo dolls on your computers or some exorcism > ritual. Come to think of it, the problems mostly started when moving > the servers to Central America. Hmmm. :-) Oh, what a man of short-lived memory ... do you not recall the fun while we were at Rackspace? :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Michael Paesold wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it seems to me, that anonymous cvs access to pgFoundry is not >> working, or is >> it just a problem with this project? (tcw-w-php) >> >> $ cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.pgfoundry.org:/cvsroot/tpc-w-php co >> tcpw-benchmark >> gives me a >> "initgroups failed: Invalid argument" >> >> This seems to come from the server, reading last strace lines... >> read(4, "error 0 initgroups failed: Inval"..., 4096) = 44 >> write(2, "initgroups failed: Invalid argum"..., 36initgroups failed: >> Invalid >> argument) = 36 >> >> Does it work for anyone? > > > CC'ng in those that administrator that stuff ... first report I've > seen go by that there is a problem with anon-cvs ... > me too. I just observed it. Might have to do with the number of groups we have. I will check it out over the weekend. cheers andrew
I have just posted the news item below on pgfoundry. Please note that the best way to report problems with pgfoundry is via its bug tracking system, or you can look in the Help forums, which are conveniently linked to from the front page. I don't have time to read -advocacy, so talking about problems there won't get my attention at least. cheers andrew ---------------- *Summary:* Anonymous CVS problems partly fixed <http://pgfoundry.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=112> We have had to change the way we do anonymous cvs/pserver access slightly - we hit a kernel limit that was preventing any pserver access at all. It should work now for all projects except these, which we will try to fix soon: autodoc, iprange, saisewak, emailadt, pglogger, oba, qtsql, modpglogger, and kpogre. Thanks for your patience. -------------------------- Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Michael Paesold wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it seems to me, that anonymous cvs access to pgFoundry is not >> working, or is >> it just a problem with this project? (tcw-w-php) >> >> $ cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.pgfoundry.org:/cvsroot/tpc-w-php co >> tcpw-benchmark >> gives me a >> "initgroups failed: Invalid argument" >> >> This seems to come from the server, reading last strace lines... >> read(4, "error 0 initgroups failed: Inval"..., 4096) = 44 >> write(2, "initgroups failed: Invalid argum"..., 36initgroups failed: >> Invalid >> argument) = 36 >> >> Does it work for anyone? > > > CC'ng in those that administrator that stuff ... first report I've > seen go by that there is a problem with anon-cvs ... > >> Also, pgFoundry seems extremly slow, compared to other postgresql sites. > > > Should be fixed soon ... we're ordering in a new Dual-Athlon (first of > many planned) in order to reduce the load on the servers ... hopefully > the order will go out sometime next week, and then just as long as it > takes to get it south ... already have the space for it reserved ... > > ---- > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services > (http://www.hub.org) > Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: > 7615664 > _______________________________________________ > Gforge-admins mailing list > Gforge-admins@pgfoundry.org > http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/gforge-admins >
All projects on pgFoundry should now be similarly modified .. On Sat, 19 Jun 2004, Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I have just posted the news item below on pgfoundry. > > Please note that the best way to report problems with pgfoundry is via its > bug tracking system, or you can look in the Help forums, which are > conveniently linked to from the front page. I don't have time to read > -advocacy, so talking about problems there won't get my attention at least. > > cheers > > andrew > > ---------------- > *Summary:* Anonymous CVS problems partly fixed > <http://pgfoundry.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=112> > > We have had to change the way we do anonymous cvs/pserver access slightly - > we hit a kernel limit that was preventing any pserver access at all. > > It should work now for all projects except these, which we will try to fix > soon: autodoc, iprange, saisewak, emailadt, pglogger, oba, qtsql, > modpglogger, and kpogre. > > Thanks for your patience. > > -------------------------- > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > >> On Fri, 18 Jun 2004, Michael Paesold wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> it seems to me, that anonymous cvs access to pgFoundry is not working, >>> or is >>> it just a problem with this project? (tcw-w-php) >>> >>> $ cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.pgfoundry.org:/cvsroot/tpc-w-php co >>> tcpw-benchmark >>> gives me a >>> "initgroups failed: Invalid argument" >>> >>> This seems to come from the server, reading last strace lines... >>> read(4, "error 0 initgroups failed: Inval"..., 4096) = 44 >>> write(2, "initgroups failed: Invalid argum"..., 36initgroups failed: >>> Invalid >>> argument) = 36 >>> >>> Does it work for anyone? >> >> >> CC'ng in those that administrator that stuff ... first report I've seen go >> by that there is a problem with anon-cvs ... >> >>> Also, pgFoundry seems extremly slow, compared to other postgresql sites. >> >> >> Should be fixed soon ... we're ordering in a new Dual-Athlon (first of >> many planned) in order to reduce the load on the servers ... hopefully the >> order will go out sometime next week, and then just as long as it takes to >> get it south ... already have the space for it reserved ... >> >> ---- >> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services >> (http://www.hub.org) >> Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: >> 7615664 >> _______________________________________________ >> Gforge-admins mailing list >> Gforge-admins@pgfoundry.org >> http://pgfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/gforge-admins >> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664