That could possibly be arranged, let me make some calls... 1/2 cab?
On 7/31/07, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> > A requirement to have 4 machines at one site to perform a particular
> > test is not a logical reason to reject the possibility of having, say,
> > 20 machines at 5 sites to perform all kinds of tests, when the
> > alternative is to have no machines at no sites.
>
> Ah, I see the misunderstanding. Would that we were talking about 20
> machines. Right now I'm twisting arms to get 5 servers and 4 JBODs, which
> we need in the same location to make use of them. So we need these
> initial machines in one place, as much as possible, to make use of them.
>
> > If you can find someone to host everything, great, but you have in fact
> > already rejected two machines because they are not at the right
> > location, when I can see great use for those machines no matter where
> > they are.
>
> The peformance testing we can do without storage (drives) is very limited.
> Currently, the only storage I have is located in the US. In my
> experience, storage is the hardest thing to get donated so I don't really
> expect to find some in Europe soon.
>
> Gavin's machine is the exception becuase it comes with a 28-disk array.
> Still, we could do even more with it if we had another machine or two in
> that location.
>
> --
> --Josh
>
> Josh Berkus
> PostgreSQL @ Sun
> San Francisco
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>