Web Hosting

Knapp magick.crow at gmail.com
Fri Mar 28 16:32:43 UTC 2008

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Derek Broughton <news at pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Knapp wrote:
>  >>  I'm going to hate myself in the morning, but I agree...
>  >>
>  >>  I should explain :-)  I live off-grid, so I don't actually have the
>  >>  resources to run a 24/7 server - either electricity or Internet access.
>  >
>  > Can't say much about your internet access but even off the grid you
>  > can run a lap top off some batteries and a solar panel! :-) Power
>  > consumption is really low with laptops and you don't need a new fancy
>  > one to run a little server.
>  Oh, really?  I'm afraid you also can't say much about off-grid power
>  consumption :-)  I worry about wall-warts.  I have _finally_ decided I can
>  live with the permanent consumption of a Linksys router (only because I
>  can't be bothered to go to the attic to switch it off when I'm not using
>  it - I should really run a switch).  My _total_ daily electrical
>  consumption is 2KwH.  I produce that with about 50 sq.ft. of solar panels.
>  My laptop - not as efficient as some, but far less than many - draws 60W
>  with the display on.  60W x 24 hours = 1440wH - i.e., 75% of my total daily
>  capacity!  I haven't attempted to figure out what the draw might be with
>  the display off, but surely more than half that.

First off, GREAT JOB! I wish I could live off the grid and save the
Earth more!! Our house being German is not as bad as my house it the
US was and we do use Greenpeace power, but still far from perfect.
What is a wall-wart?

Nope not an expert but I have seen this:
Which would give you every other day some time.
And this: http://ascscientific.com/solar.html
Thus 3 of these should power your laptop with daylight, right? Also,
if you are running a server then you don't need to power the screen
saving like 18 watts, I think.
I still think that this could be done, might cost you 3 grand though to set up

This looks fun!

This guy is DOING IT!!!! and with linux, says he gets it down to 20W
at times. Gives directions too!

>  >>  > Want something bigger try postgreSQL with apache2 and Django.
>  >>
>  >>  Postgresql is not very big for what you get.  I do a lot of SQL
>  >>  development, and I can't believe the difference between trying to do
>  >>  anything in Oracle and the same in Postgre.
>  >
>  > Can you say more about this? What is the difference that you have
>  > seen? I have never used Oracle but I would like to hear about it and
>  > the why of what you are saying.
>  Well, Postgres can do virtually everything that Oracle can do on the
>  database end.  Oracle then has this huge infrastructure that does things
>  I'll never care about or even understand.  So oracle-xe is a 405MB package.
>  postgresql-8.2 is 12.1MB.  When I start oracle-xe, I get an entire
>  web-server to support it (that only really works with IE browsers).  When I
>  start postgresql, I don't - but I have all the tools readily available
>  anyway.  I knew somebody who implemented an application back in the late
>  90s on postgres - and it blew up really messily a few weeks later when the
>  database hit 4TB (I think it could handle that now, but I wouldn't know).
>From the PostgreSQL webpage:
Limit	                              Value
Maximum Database Size	Unlimited
Maximum Table Size	32 TB
Maximum Row Size	1.6 TB
Maximum Field Size	1 GB
Maximum Rows per Table	Unlimited
Maximum Columns per Table	250 - 1600 depending on column types
Maximum Indexes per Table	Unlimited

>  Oracle could handle that without blinking - but it runs some 30 processes
>  on my system (this little laptop!) to be able to.  One of the fun features
>  is that I can't run Windows XP in virtualbox, to get an IE session to
>  administer my Oracle server - not enough memory for all that.

I have read that PostgreSQL is going strongly after this multiCPU
thing because all the computers in 10 years will be like that. <don't
quote me here, this could be wrong, just off the top of my head after
reading like 20 web pages about all this.>

>  I have got to the point where for development (most of which is still
>  targeted to Oracle systems) I copy the database structures to Postgres,
>  develop with postgres, then run integration tests with the Oracle server.
>  I also run mysql occasionally, but ime, it _can't_ do everything I'd do
>  with Oracle.

>  >
>  http://www.kaltenbrunner.cc/blog/index.php?/archives/21-8.3-vs.-8.2-a-simple-benchmark.html
>  >
>  >
>  > To sum this all up and state what I see:
>  > Best for complex big system databases in order first being best.
>  > Oracle, PostgreSQL, Mysql, SQlite
>  > Best for simple uses and really high speed uses.
>  > SQlite, Mysql, PostgrSQL, Oracle.
>  I'm not convinced that mysql can ever come ahead of postgres, but my
>  knowledge is about as out of date as you mention above.  Otherwise, I'd
>  agree.

I have yet to find a good benchmark between the two and Mysql did just
get picked up by BIG pocketed people (company). I don't like MySQL but
then who am I? I think with this backing you will see it take off and
be a good, maybe I should say stronger as it is good for many now,
product in a few years time.

>  > Last note: Oracle is really expansive and needs special hardware and
>  > might not be faster than PostGreSQL now.
>  It no longer needs special hardware.  It can run on any Linux system and is
>  certified on Ubuntu.  They're even pushing their own "Oracle Unbreakable
>  Linux".

The targets never holds still!

>  derek

Douglas E Knapp

More information about the kubuntu-users mailing list