[Spacewalk-list] users.dbf @ 4.2GB

[James Hogarth]

2010/7/30 Miroslav Suchý <msuchy at redhat.com>:
> On 07/29/2010 06:32 PM, Adam Yates wrote:
>>
>> Hi all;
>>
> Well ... if you have at least two full channel (like full centos or full
> fedora) then it is expected.
>

Hmm interesting... My channel list currently looks like:

Name					Packages	Subscribed
centos 5 x86_64				3434		80
centos 5 x86_64	updates		489		80
epel 5 x86_64				7681		80
Hudson					17		2
postgres 8.4 x86_64			193		12
RHEL Spacewalk Client		45		80
RHEL Spacewalk Server		331		4
Sky Entertainment Repo GWH 	142		48
Sky Entertainment Repo Prod 	49		32

I also have quite a few files under configuration management along
with a variety of different kickstarts...

My monitoring currently has me at DB_USED=1988.37MB

These are from nightly spacewalk-repo-sync being carried out to
upstream repos (excepting the last two which are our packages
in-house). I do not use the monitoring features as of yet to limit
used space.... Does the OP have monitoring enabled perhaps? Or a very
large number of systems to look after?

>
> No. It is not stable. In nighlty build you should be able to install
> Spacewalk, create first user and log in to Overview. Any other page will
> give you more or less error. And we are looking for contributor who will
> help us to fix those queried one by one. Sadly no one volunteer yet.
>

I am still trying to make time for this but my current project work
for other needed activities precludes much apart from a bit of mailing
list activity... Fingers crossed I'll have stuff out the way for a
lighter load to set up a spacewalk dev environment in the next couple
of weeks to assist as much as I can....

>
> Either dedicate someone who will contribute to PgSQL support in Spacewalk or
> buy license from Oracle.
>

Oracle One would do at a pinch budget wise (relatively speaking fairly
cheap if there are hundreds of machine to look after) with the space
limits removed.... If/when my DB hits around 3GB used I'll start
getting internal quotes here for it if the postgres backend isn't
ready for limited testing by then...

James