Le mercredi 22 août 2012 à 13:15 +0800, Craig Ringer a écrit : > He appears to be suggesting that buying access to real hardware in a > datacenter (if not buying the hardware yourself) is more cost effective > and easier to manage than using "cloud" style services with more > transient hosts like EC2 offers. At least that's how I understood it. Hi Craig, Actually, my comments about costs were misleading : I simply reacted to the fact that the OP wanted to test his application for high performance, and thought that it would be easier with bare metal rather than with AWS, because you have less parameters to control this way. Also, I'll admit that I jumped the gun without reading about the SSD offer by Amazon. Still, I would test first with a machine that I control, but it maybe that Sébastien already did that. I am curious to know what kind of application requires 10s to 100s of instances with a PostgreSQL database, because that could get unwieldy with big data (which I assumed from the high performance specification) -- Vincent Veyron http://marica.fr/ Gestion informatique des sinistres d'assurances et des dossiers contentieux pour le service juridique -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
