Looking at my mailbox, I see _no_ open items for 7.2.  Is this a good
time for RC1?  Tom, can you apply that lwlock patch you are holding?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 4 Jan 2002 00:53:44 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
RC1 time?
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> Looking at my mailbox, I see _no_ open items for 7.2.  Is this a good
> time for RC1?  Tom, can you apply that lwlock patch you are holding?

Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
in to_timestamp/to_date.

I agree we're close though.  Anyone object to RC1 this weekend?

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:32:05 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: RC1 time? 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Looking at my mailbox, I see _no_ open items for 7.2.  Is this a good
> > time for RC1?  Tom, can you apply that lwlock patch you are holding?
> 
> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> in to_timestamp/to_date.

I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied.  Was
there another issue?

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:39:38 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: RC1 time?
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
>> in to_timestamp/to_date.

> I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied.  Was
> there another issue?

Yes.  He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date.  Thomas thought it
might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
7.1 to 7.2.  See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390

(BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
awful lot of traffic?  For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
being its only omission lately.)

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 04 Jan 2002 01:50:38 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: RC1 time? 
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
> 
> > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied.  Was
> > there another issue?
> 
> Yes.  He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date.  Thomas thought it
> might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> 7.1 to 7.2.  See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390

Oh, I didn't realize that was a valid issue that needed attention.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

Fri, 4 Jan 2002 01:52:45 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: RC1 time?
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
>
> > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied.  Was
> > there another issue?
>
> Yes.  He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date.  Thomas thought it
> might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> 7.1 to 7.2.  See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390
>
> (BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
> awful lot of traffic?  For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
> comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
> being its only omission lately.)

there were a *lot of troubles* with fts.postgresql.org connected with
moving to new server, which is far from my dream computer :-)
We hope to restore all messages we lost in transition period
(we have to take into account references between postings must be persistent !).
btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
id currently awfull slow !

>
> 			regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Fri, 4 Jan 2002 10:48:04 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: RC1 time? 
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
>
> > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied.  Was
> > there another issue?
>
> Yes.  He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date.  Thomas thought it
> might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> 7.1 to 7.2.  See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390
>
> (BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
> awful lot of traffic?  For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
> comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
> being its only omission lately.)

We just moved it from the old server (that I have to shut down) to the new
one at Rackspace ... the one thing I have to do over the next short period
of time is to spring for a memory upgrade on that machine though, as
512Meg just doesn't cut it :(


Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:47:50 -0500 (EST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: RC1 time? 
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> id currently awfull slow !

Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
had before, but memory is half of what it was ...



Sat, 5 Jan 2002 01:49:49 -0500 (EST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: RC1 time? 
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> > >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
> >
> > > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied.  Was
> > > there another issue?
> >
> > Yes.  He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> > problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date.  Thomas thought it
> > might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> > 7.1 to 7.2.  See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390
> >
> > (BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
> > awful lot of traffic?  For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
> > comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
> > being its only omission lately.)
>
> We just moved it from the old server (that I have to shut down) to the new
> one at Rackspace ... the one thing I have to do over the next short period
> of time is to spring for a memory upgrade on that machine though, as
> 512Meg just doesn't cut it :(

I see on db.postgresql.org

> vmstat -w 5
 procs      memory      page                    disks     faults      cpu
 r b w     avm    fre  flt  re  pi  po  fr  sr da0 da1   in   sy  cs us sy id
 0 17 0  471224  28184  369   3   4   2 325 334   0   0  331  401 182 29  2 69

 0 19 0  414556  19272  644   1   1   0 546   0   0 172  461  823 290  1  2 97
 1 19 0  414788  23940  459   4   4   1 474 615   1 170  454  734 286  0  2 98
 1 20 0  428592  26912  372   3  14   0 433 592   6 182  480  790 296  1  2 97
 2 19 0  458688  30164  318   3   9   0 423 592   3 177  463  787 289  1  2 97
 1 17 0  446848  24196  303   2   4   0 454   0   2 177  463  878 294  1  2 97
 0 18 0  452432  29404  228   1   3   2 324 633   2 184  472  842 305  2  4 94
 0 19 0  449724  21860  200  14   6   0 508   0   1 188  473  702 283  0  2 98

disk activity is very bad, probably not balanced. I catch a moment
when fts.postgresql.org was slow.




>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Sat, 5 Jan 2002 21:11:13 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: RC1 time? 
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > > >> Aside from the lwlock business, Karel seems to be seeing some problem
> > > >> in to_timestamp/to_date.
> > >
> > > > I thought Karel sent in a to_date patch yesterday that you applied.  Was
> > > > there another issue?
> > >
> > > Yes.  He reported something that looked a lot like a DST boundary
> > > problem, except it wasn't on a DST boundary date.  Thomas thought it
> > > might be a consequence of the timestamp-vs-timestamptz change from
> > > 7.1 to 7.2.  See http://fts.postgresql.org/db/mw/msg.html?mid=1345390
> > >
> > > (BTW, is anyone else noticing that fts.postgresql.org is missing an
> > > awful lot of traffic?  For example, I can't get it to show Thomas'
> > > comment on the above-mentioned thread; and that is *VERY* far from
> > > being its only omission lately.)
> >
> > We just moved it from the old server (that I have to shut down) to the new
> > one at Rackspace ... the one thing I have to do over the next short period
> > of time is to spring for a memory upgrade on that machine though, as
> > 512Meg just doesn't cut it :(
>
> I see on db.postgresql.org
>
> > vmstat -w 5
>  procs      memory      page                    disks     faults      cpu
>  r b w     avm    fre  flt  re  pi  po  fr  sr da0 da1   in   sy  cs us sy id
>  0 17 0  471224  28184  369   3   4   2 325 334   0   0  331  401 182 29  2 69
>
>  0 19 0  414556  19272  644   1   1   0 546   0   0 172  461  823 290  1  2 97
>  1 19 0  414788  23940  459   4   4   1 474 615   1 170  454  734 286  0  2 98
>  1 20 0  428592  26912  372   3  14   0 433 592   6 182  480  790 296  1  2 97
>  2 19 0  458688  30164  318   3   9   0 423 592   3 177  463  787 289  1  2 97
>  1 17 0  446848  24196  303   2   4   0 454   0   2 177  463  878 294  1  2 97
>  0 18 0  452432  29404  228   1   3   2 324 633   2 184  472  842 305  2  4 94
>  0 19 0  449724  21860  200  14   6   0 508   0   1 188  473  702 283  0  2 98
>
> disk activity is very bad, probably not balanced. I catch a moment
> when fts.postgresql.org was slow.

Most of it is due to the high swap being used .. I've had two offers so
far to help upgrade the RAM, and am looking into the costs of doing so ...



Sat, 5 Jan 2002 14:12:09 -0500 (EST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: RC1 time? 
> > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > id currently awfull slow !
> Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> had before, but memory is half of what it was ...

Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??

                 - Thomas

Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:31:35 +0000
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@fourpalms.org>
Re: RC1 time?
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > id currently awfull slow !
> > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
>
> Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??

Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.


>
>                  - Thomas
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Tue, 8 Jan 2002 02:49:14 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: RC1 time?
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > id currently awfull slow !
> > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
>
> Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??

    Count me in.


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #



_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com


Mon, 7 Jan 2002 23:50:36 -0500 (EST)
Jan Wieck <janwieck@yahoo.com>
Re: RC1 time?

server is at rackspace in San Antonio, Tx ... and am looking into it ...


On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

> > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > id currently awfull slow !
> > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
>
> Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
>
>                  - Thomas
>


Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:37:06 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: RC1 time?
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
>
> > > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > > id currently awfull slow !
> > > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
> >
> > Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
>
> Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
> rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
> I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.


the only thing that server hosts is the PostgreSQL Project ...


Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:37:55 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: RC1 time?
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > id currently awfull slow !
> > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
> 
> Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??

What kind of server? What kind of RAM? If it is an x86 BOX I have some
PC100 256M simms.

If you are looking for a server, I might be able to convince my company
(www.dmn.com) to donate an dual PIII 650.

Tue, 08 Jan 2002 09:46:52 -0500
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Re: RC1 time?
On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >
> > > > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > > > id currently awfull slow !
> > > > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > > > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
> > >
> > > Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
> >
> > Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
> > rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
> > I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.
>
>
> the only thing that server hosts is the PostgreSQL Project ...

Again, I'd prefer to have a separate machine dedicated for fts project.
I don't like to work in 'jail' bsdish environment :-)
Currently I see, for example, ftpd process eats about 10hours ! of CPU,
keep in mind the server rebooted only 2 days ago !
Disk activity is very high ! There are only 2 disks ..
simple select from table with 10 records takes about 10 seconds !
Damn. I think it's time to think seriously about supporting of
postgresql.org. It's sort of marketing things, but it's very important.
If, for example, somebody interest in database with full text search
support and tries fts.postgresql.org, he'll form a very bad opinion
about search engine, about database. He'll not interested that
hardware is very limited and this is temporal problem. He will go
to mysql website :-(

In my opinion, simple PIII server: 1Gb ram, 3 HD  (SCSI) ( system, db, web )
would be enough for fts.postgresql.org.




>
>
> ---------------------------(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
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:52:54 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: RC1 time?
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > > > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > > > > id currently awfull slow !
> > > > > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > > > > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
> > > >

[snip]

> Damn. I think it's time to think seriously about supporting of
> postgresql.org. It's sort of marketing things, but it's very important.
> If, for example, somebody interest in database with full text search
> support and tries fts.postgresql.org, he'll form a very bad opinion
> about search engine, about database. He'll not interested that
> hardware is very limited and this is temporal problem. He will go
> to mysql website :-(

I agree. It is bad form. 

Perhaps Red Hat or SRA would be able to help out?

Gavin


Wed, 9 Jan 2002 23:11:39 +1100 (EST)
Gavin Sherry <swm@linuxworld.com.au>
Re: RC1 time?
mlw wrote:
> 
> Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> >
> > > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > > id currently awfull slow !
> > > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
> >
> > Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
> 
> What kind of server? What kind of RAM? If it is an x86 BOX I have some
> PC100 256M simms.
> 
> If you are looking for a server, I might be able to convince my company
> (www.dmn.com) to donate an dual PIII 650

We have an Intel Motherboard Dual PIII 650, 2U rack mount server. 512MRAM, but
I'm sure I can scrounge 1G. It has 1 18G IBM SCSI Hard disk, but two built in
SCSI controllers. One LVD one SE. Built in Intel nic. (I wouldn't trust the
disk because it has had a year of service.)

Does postgresql.org need such a box? If so, let me know.

Wed, 09 Jan 2002 07:50:34 -0500
mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>
Re: RC1 time? (Server time)
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, mlw wrote:

>
> We have an Intel Motherboard Dual PIII 650, 2U rack mount server. 512MRAM, but
> I'm sure I can scrounge 1G. It has 1 18G IBM SCSI Hard disk, but two built in
> SCSI controllers. One LVD one SE. Built in Intel nic. (I wouldn't trust the
> disk because it has had a year of service.)
>
> Does postgresql.org need such a box? If so, let me know.
>

Thanks,

It's Marc's decision but for dedicated server it'd be ok even with
512 Mb RAM (of course more memory would be nice). I wrote about
3 hard drives, but in minimal configuration we need separate HD
for database + HD for system and web stuff (2*18Gb SCSI look fine)


	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:27:58 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: RC1 time? (Server time)

Just as an FYI, the server is to be upgraded from 512Meg to 4GB over the
next few days ... thanks to everyone that offered to help spring for this,
but Rackspace is only charging us a very small amount to perform the
upgrade itself, with the RAM not costing a thing ...

As for a seperate machine for fts ... I'm in the process of trying to get
a second machine for Hub, since our first machine is just about at
capacity ... it will have 4GB of RAM on her and 7x18Gig RAID5 SCSI ... at
that time, I will move the db.postgresql.org server onto it, so that the
database is on a seperate machine from the web server itself ... I assume
that should help, just a little?

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:

> On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 8 Jan 2002, Oleg Bartunov wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 7 Jan 2002, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > btw, if somebody could donate a server dedicated for rapidly growing
> > > > > > mailing list archive (already > 300,000 messages) ? fts.postgresql.org
> > > > > > id currently awfull slow !
> > > > > Or wants to spring for the memory upgrade?  The server is better then we
> > > > > had before, but memory is half of what it was ...
> > > >
> > > > Where is this server located? What would a memory upgrade cost??
> > >
> > > Only Marc knows. I think server is overloaded - it hosts several
> > > rather big projects+database server. More memory will helps but
> > > I'd add several hard drives to separate disk activity.
> >
> >
> > the only thing that server hosts is the PostgreSQL Project ...
>
> Again, I'd prefer to have a separate machine dedicated for fts project.
> I don't like to work in 'jail' bsdish environment :-)
> Currently I see, for example, ftpd process eats about 10hours ! of CPU,
> keep in mind the server rebooted only 2 days ago !
> Disk activity is very high ! There are only 2 disks ..
> simple select from table with 10 records takes about 10 seconds !
> Damn. I think it's time to think seriously about supporting of
> postgresql.org. It's sort of marketing things, but it's very important.
> If, for example, somebody interest in database with full text search
> support and tries fts.postgresql.org, he'll form a very bad opinion
> about search engine, about database. He'll not interested that
> hardware is very limited and this is temporal problem. He will go
> to mysql website :-(
>
> In my opinion, simple PIII server: 1Gb ram, 3 HD  (SCSI) ( system, db, web )
> would be enough for fts.postgresql.org.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(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
> >
>
> 	Regards,
> 		Oleg
> _____________________________________________________________
> Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
> Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
> Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
> phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83
>
>


Wed, 9 Jan 2002 14:02:19 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: RC1 time?
As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...

The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
long time.  In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
to four-hour turnaround for postings).  Will these planned upgrades
help that situation at all?

			regards, tom lane

Wed, 09 Jan 2002 15:07:18 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: RC1 time? 

We're going from 512Meg -> 4GB ... most of the issues right now are swap
related ... that machine is just swapping like crazy ...

On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
>
> The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
> long time.  In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
> to four-hour turnaround for postings).  Will these planned upgrades
> help that situation at all?
>
> 			regards, tom lane
>


Wed, 9 Jan 2002 16:21:04 -0400 (AST)
"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@hub.org>
Re: RC1 time? 
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
>
> The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
> long time.  In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
> to four-hour turnaround for postings).  Will these planned upgrades
> help that situation at all?

Yes.

Vince.
-- 
==========================================================================
Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH    email: vev@michvhf.com    http://www.pop4.net
         56K Nationwide Dialup from $16.00/mo at Pop4 Networking
        Online Campground Directory    http://www.camping-usa.com
       Online Giftshop Superstore    http://www.cloudninegifts.com
==========================================================================




Wed, 9 Jan 2002 17:09:38 -0500 (EST)
Vince Vielhaber <vev@michvhf.com>
Re: RC1 time? 
On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

>
> We're going from 512Meg -> 4GB ... most of the issues right now are swap
> related ... that machine is just swapping like crazy ...

not so much right nmow.  I think Marc just have no time to administrate
this machine. I wrote already about ftpd process which eats all CPU and
CPU time.

last pid: 26390;  load averages:  1.36,  1.46,  1.37    up 2+14:36:51  00:27:27
268 processes: 5 running, 261 sleeping, 2 zombie
CPU states: 50.3% user,  0.0% nice,  1.7% system,  0.0% interrupt, 48.0% idle
Mem: 258M Active, 93M Inact, 80M Wired, 27M Cache, 61M Buf, 42M Free
Swap: 1024M Total, 137M Used, 887M Free, 13% Inuse

  PID USERNAME  PRI NICE  SIZE    RES STATE  C   TIME   WCPU    CPU COMMAND
 2986 root       56   0   812K   328K CPU1   0  31.4H 99.02% 99.02% ftpd
26376 robot      30   0  2232K  1316K CPU0   1   0:00  1.88%  0.34% top

Awfull.
> w
12:28AM  up 2 days, 14:37, 2 users, load averages: 1.33, 1.44, 1.37
USER             TTY      FROM              LOGIN@  IDLE WHAT

 From 2 days online 'ftpd' eats 31 hours of CPU !

Also there are many issues I usually expect from system+db administrators.

So , I don't think adding a lot of RAM will help until such things like
crazy process eating CPU, everything live in one HD



>
> On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
> >
> > The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
> > long time.  In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
> > to four-hour turnaround for postings).  Will these planned upgrades
> > help that situation at all?
> >
> > 			regards, tom lane
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>

	Regards,
		Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, sci.researcher, hostmaster of AstroNet,
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University (Russia)
Internet: oleg@sai.msu.su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(095)939-16-83, +007(095)939-23-83


Thu, 10 Jan 2002 09:32:37 +0300 (GMT)
Oleg Bartunov <oleg@sai.msu.su>
Re: RC1 time? 
On Wed, 2002-01-09 at 22:07, Tom Lane wrote:

> As long as we're talking about overloaded resources ...
> 
> The mailing list servers seem to have been horribly overloaded for a
> long time.  In the past couple days it's been particularly bad (three-
> to four-hour turnaround for postings).  Will these planned upgrades
> help that situation at all?

There are also problems, IMHO, with the mail->Usenet gateway: I've just
resubscribed to the list since there are only an handful of messages on
news.postgresql.org, and that's been a constant since mid-December.

-- 
Alessio F. Bragadini		alessio@albourne.com
APL Financial Services		http://village.albourne.com
Nicosia, Cyprus		 	phone: +357-22-755750

"It is more complicated than you think"
		-- The Eighth Networking Truth from RFC 1925


10 Jan 2002 16:49:26 +0200
Alessio Bragadini <alessio@albourne.com>
Re: Usenet service (was: RC1 time?)