Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Le dimanche 13 janvier 2013 à 18:27 +, Shaun Thomas a écrit : I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. A few interesting comments for you in this discussion, maybe : http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/01/17/160249/centos-59-released -- Salutations, Vincent Veyron http://marica.fr/site/demonstration Logiciel de gestion des contentieux juridiques et des sinistres d'assurance -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:46:58PM -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: The reasons to NOT use ubuntu under PostgreSQL are primarily that 1: they often choose a pretty meh grade kernel with performance regressions for their initial LTS release. I.e. they'll choose a 3.4.0 kernel over a very stable 3.2.latest kernel, and then patch away til the LTS becomes stable. This is especially problematic the first 6 to 12 months after an LTS release. I wouldn't call it a reason not to use Ubuntu, but a reason why you might want to use the previous LTS release. The kernel chosen needs to be supported for 5 years, yet remain stable enough for the supported application releases to be supported for 5 years. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: This really sums it up for me. Do you need the most recent kernel with all the performance enhancements and new hardware support, and if so, are you willing to accept frequent updates and breakage as the bugs are fixed? I hear lots of people like to wait for the .1 release of the LTS for this sort of reason. It seems a common policy for applications too, steering clear of .0 releases in favor of waiting for the initial patch release. -- Stuart Bishop stu...@stuartbishop.net http://www.stuartbishop.net/ -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
- Original Message - From: Stuart Bishop stu...@stuartbishop.net To: Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us Cc: Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com, SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO olut...@sadeeb.com, Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz, Chris Ernst cer...@zvelo.com, pgsql-general@postgresql.org Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:00:56 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences? On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:46:58PM -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: The reasons to NOT use ubuntu under PostgreSQL are primarily that 1: they often choose a pretty meh grade kernel with performance regressions for their initial LTS release. I.e. they'll choose a 3.4.0 kernel over a very stable 3.2.latest kernel, and then patch away til the LTS becomes stable. This is especially problematic the first 6 to 12 months after an LTS release. I wouldn't call it a reason not to use Ubuntu, but a reason why you might want to use the previous LTS release. The kernel chosen needs to be supported for 5 years, yet remain stable enough for the supported application releases to be supported for 5 years. On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:02 AM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: This really sums it up for me. Do you need the most recent kernel with all the performance enhancements and new hardware support, and if so, are you willing to accept frequent updates and breakage as the bugs are fixed? I hear lots of people like to wait for the .1 release of the LTS for this sort of reason. It seems a common policy for applications too, steering clear of .0 releases in favor of waiting for the initial patch release. -- Stuart Bishop stu...@stuartbishop.net http://www.stuartbishop.net/ I always wait for one year to lapse before upgrading to the latest LTS Thanks, Sunday Olutayo -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Le lundi 14 janvier 2013 à 16:35 -0600, Shaun Thomas a écrit : My personal server is on Debian too, with a similar uptime. But we recently ran into this guy on our 12.04 Ubuntu systems: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1055222 Ha, so you seem to need to use the X windows system, which I do not use on my servers, so I can't speak for that. Even calling canonical to ask about buying a support contract got us an automated We'll contact you within two business days response, which isn't exactly ideal. So we're strongly considering RHEL, because at least they would call us back, and would give us some small amount of peace knowing we could maybe get some assistance since we don't exactly have a kernel dev on staff to find things like this. I understand the reasoning; but I wonder : would it make sense for you to pick one of the well known systems mentionned above thread, with a specialist(*) catering to your installation/maintenance needs, and then have another different one as a standby backup, ready to take over in case of need? I'm asking this because I try to find a way out of the 'big corporation only talking to the big corporation' paradigm. (* : typically a linux nerd, with long hair, a beard and shorts, who knows his stuff; not a corporate drone) -- Salutations, Vincent Veyron http://gdlc.fr/logiciels Applications de gestion des sinistres assurances et des contentieux -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Vincent Veyron wrote: On Debian/Ubuntu, the default behavior is to have SSL enabled out of the box, including for TCP connections to localhost. It is in Ubuntu, but not in Debian. No, I've seen it a number of times with Debian. pg_createcluster will enable SSL in postgresql.conf if it finds usable certificates under /etc/ssl. When it doesn't, it's because of an antiquated version of postgresql-common, or lack of certificates, or non-standard permissions to them. More generally, Ubuntu vs Debian is not relevant for Postgres packages, they are essentially identical at comparable version levels. Best regards, -- Daniel PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Le mardi 15 janvier 2013 à 12:54 +0100, Daniel Verite a écrit : Vincent Veyron wrote: On Debian/Ubuntu, the default behavior is to have SSL enabled out of the box, including for TCP connections to localhost. It is in Ubuntu, but not in Debian. No, I've seen it a number of times with Debian. pg_createcluster will enable SSL in postgresql.conf if it finds usable certificates under /etc/ssl. When it doesn't, it's because of an antiquated version of postgresql-common, or lack of certificates, or non-standard permissions to them. I stand corrected! You appear to be right, I should have checked my notes : #edit /etc/postgresql/8.4/main/postgresql.conf #ssl=true after upgrading from 8.3 Sorry about that. -- Salutations, Vincent Veyron http://gdlc.fr/logiciels Applications de gestion des sinistres assurances et des contentieux -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Vincent Veyron vv.li...@wanadoo.fr wrote: Le lundi 14 janvier 2013 à 16:35 -0600, Shaun Thomas a écrit : My personal server is on Debian too, with a similar uptime. But we recently ran into this guy on our 12.04 Ubuntu systems: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1055222 Ha, so you seem to need to use the X windows system, which I do not use on my servers, so I can't speak for that. I don't see how that shows the previous poster needs X Windows. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Le mardi 15 janvier 2013 à 07:52 -0700, Scott Marlowe a écrit : On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:54 AM, Vincent Veyron vv.li...@wanadoo.fr wrote: Le lundi 14 janvier 2013 à 16:35 -0600, Shaun Thomas a écrit : My personal server is on Debian too, with a similar uptime. But we recently ran into this guy on our 12.04 Ubuntu systems: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1055222 Ha, so you seem to need to use the X windows system, which I do not use on my servers, so I can't speak for that. I don't see how that shows the previous poster needs X Windows. Admittedly inferred from reading this thread : http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/9069/benefiting-of-sched-autogroup-enabled-on-the-desktop and the fact that the systems were turned off, so not online servers but workstations. I might have been jumping to conclusions (I did write seem to need) -- Salutations, Vincent Veyron http://gdlc.fr/logiciels Applications de gestion des sinistres assurances et des contentieux -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:46:58PM -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: The reasons to NOT use ubuntu under PostgreSQL are primarily that 1: they often choose a pretty meh grade kernel with performance regressions for their initial LTS release. I.e. they'll choose a 3.4.0 kernel over a very stable 3.2.latest kernel, and then patch away til the LTS becomes stable. This is especially problematic the first 6 to 12 months after an LTS release. This really sums it up for me. Do you need the most recent kernel with all the performance enhancements and new hardware support, and if so, are you willing to accept frequent updates and breakage as the bugs are fixed? -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 08:46:58PM -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote: The reasons to NOT use ubuntu under PostgreSQL are primarily that 1: they often choose a pretty meh grade kernel with performance regressions for their initial LTS release. I.e. they'll choose a 3.4.0 kernel over a very stable 3.2.latest kernel, and then patch away til the LTS becomes stable. This is especially problematic the first 6 to 12 months after an LTS release. This really sums it up for me. Do you need the most recent kernel with all the performance enhancements and new hardware support, and if so, are you willing to accept frequent updates and breakage as the bugs are fixed? Yeah. If you just started development and expect to deploy in 6 to 12 months time it's pretty acceptable. If the distro's been out a year it's ok. If you already have a solid and reliable infrastructure, then you should be doing a LOT of stress testing before using a new distro. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.comwrote: Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. Find the one that suits *you* (or rather your employer/client) and use that ;) We can debate the pros and cons of each and every distro, and in the end it'll be the one that suits your (or your client/employer's) needs and makes you (or your client/employer) happy that'll win the battle. In the bigger enterprises, RHEL and SuSE typically wins. As you go down the Centos/Fedora/Ubuntu/Debians start to become more prevalent (license costs etc.) The questions you'll need to ask and investigate: 1) Do I want license/support that I can pay somebody to look into my OS troubles? 2) How active is the community for this distro? 3) Which distros are the people around you using? (ie. replacement/backups/etc.) 4) Do you want bleeding/leading/stable/old releases? 5) Can you compile from source for this? 6) What OSes are your hosting/etc. supporting? (for the servers on the net out there) 7) Am I/company/client happy with this choice?
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Edson Richter edsonrich...@hotmail.com wrote: Em 14/01/2013 01:46, Scott Marlowe escreveu: My preference personally is for debian based distros since they support the rather more elegant pg wrappers that allow you to run multiple versions and multiple clusters of those versions with very easy commands. RHEL is great for building a stable but not necessarily ultra faster server, and if you can afford their commercial support it IS top notch. Debian and Ubuntu feel much the same to me, from the command line, on a server. Do you have any fact that support RHEL being slower than others? I would like to improve our servers if we can get some ideas - so far, we have tried Ubuntu LTS servers, and seems just as fast as RHEL for PostgreSQL (tests made by issuing heavy queries). It's not that RHEL is real slow. But in a lot of orgnizations you might be running a 3 or 4 year old release, which may or may not be real fast on newer hardware. This isn't just RHEL, it's any old release. A lot of older kernels don't get the best of performance out of numa or late model RAID controllers and so on. OTOH they're often very stable. If RHEL5 is say 10% slower than the latest Fedora release, that's likely a fair tradeoff of stability and support versus performance. I've been working with an older Debian release lately and it's definitely quite a bit slower than ubuntu 12.04 on the same biggish iron hardware. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 14/01/13 22:24, Hendrik Visage wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com mailto:stho...@optionshouse.com wrote: Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. Find the one that suits *you* (or rather your employer/client) and use that ;) We can debate the pros and cons of each and every distro, and in the end it'll be the one that suits your (or your client/employer's) needs and makes you (or your client/employer) happy that'll win the battle. In the bigger enterprises, RHEL and SuSE typically wins. As you go down the Centos/Fedora/Ubuntu/Debians start to become more prevalent (license costs etc.) The questions you'll need to ask and investigate: 1) Do I want license/support that I can pay somebody to look into my OS troubles? 2) How active is the community for this distro? 3) Which distros are the people around you using? (ie. replacement/backups/etc.) 4) Do you want bleeding/leading/stable/old releases? 5) Can you compile from source for this? 6) What OSes are your hosting/etc. supporting? (for the servers on the net out there) 7) Am I/company/client happy with this choice? In essence... It is that most irritating replies a highly paid consultant can give: It depends! You have to decide what are the important criteria for your situation, the above list is a good starting point. I would add 'security 'performance' requirements. I am well aware, that if I had attempted to provide a list, that I would have missed some of the questions Shaun raised. I am sure other people can add good questions as well. A lot depends on your actual situation, and your intended use cases. In a few months, I may have to go through the same exercise for real. :-( Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Edson Richter wrote: Do you have any fact that support RHEL being slower than others? I would like to improve our servers if we can get some ideas - so far, we have tried Ubuntu LTS servers, and seems just as fast as RHEL for PostgreSQL (tests made by issuing heavy queries). On Debian/Ubuntu, the default behavior is to have SSL enabled out of the box, including for TCP connections to localhost. That may be a good idea for remote access, but for local/LAN connections, it can slow things down quite significantly . The problem is that people end up using SSL without needing or knowing it. Of course it can be turned off by using hostnossl for specific hosts in pg_hba.conf, or globally with SSL=off in postgresql.conf, or using Unix domain sockets for local connections, but people not well-versed in PG are often not aware of this. Other than that, the rest of the packaging is awesome, especially the layer that make it possible to manage several simultaneous PG instances. Best regards, -- Daniel PostgreSQL-powered mail user agent and storage: http://www.manitou-mail.org -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Le lundi 14 janvier 2013 à 18:03 +0100, Daniel Verite a écrit : On Debian/Ubuntu, the default behavior is to have SSL enabled out of the box, including for TCP connections to localhost. It is in Ubuntu, but not in Debian. To the OP : I maintain three servers using Debian stable, each facing the internet. Lightly loaded (about 5 full time users each, using specialized applications). The only maintenance I have is to regularly do apt-get update apt-get upgrade. The only downtime I had in over two years was due a forced bios upgrade by the hosting service, and I have no formal training in server administration. Debian stable certainly works. -- Salutations, Vincent Veyron http://gdlc.fr/logiciels Applications de gestion des sinistres assurances et des contentieux -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 01/14/2013 04:19 PM, Vincent Veyron wrote: The only downtime I had in over two years was due a forced bios upgrade by the hosting service, and I have no formal training in server administration. Debian stable certainly works. My personal server is on Debian too, with a similar uptime. But we recently ran into this guy on our 12.04 Ubuntu systems: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/1055222 I sent a message to [Performance] a while back suggesting disabling this setting, and it's still true. But apparently if you set sched_autogroup_enabled to 0 via sysctl, you won't be able to boot because the kernel will panic before it finishes. Using the setting at all makes reboots crash. And apparently, some tasks can occasionally get into a bad state such that deallocating them causes a kernel oops in set_task_cpu. That's hilariously bad, and all due to a merge from upstream from a few months ago. I probably wrongly attributed this to Ubuntu since it's the top result in searching for 'sched_autogroup_enabled panic', but the real point was that there doesn't seem to be any official support. We couldn't escalate this problem to anyone anywhere, except by tagging the bug report or opening our own. Even calling canonical to ask about buying a support contract got us an automated We'll contact you within two business days response, which isn't exactly ideal. So we're strongly considering RHEL, because at least they would call us back, and would give us some small amount of peace knowing we could maybe get some assistance since we don't exactly have a kernel dev on staff to find things like this. We did figure it out eventually, but it took a couple hours to figure out why the machines wouldn't boot, and all weekend to fully isolate the problem as the cause of the other crashes. So of course, we had to ask. I know this could have (and has, in my experience) happen to any distro, but it just seems more... prevalent in Ubuntu. Then again, our older RHEL systems crashed like it was their job when we were using our onboard Broadcom NICs. Maybe we're expecting too much. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd. | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 stho...@optionshouse.com __ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. We were on dedicated FreeBSD servers since FreeBSD 4/5 w/ PostgreSQL 7/8. Then, when the cloud servers came and Rackspace had no FreeBSD, we changed to Debian. Since Rackspace have FreeBSD, we are on FreeBSD 9 w/ PostgreSQL 9. Nearly 200 GB database, 4 CPU cores, 8 GB RAM, some tables with more than 500m records, master w/ two slaves on asynchronous streaming replication. Zero trouble. We like FreeBSD, because, like PostgreSQL, it is a solid thing and not glued together like Linux. When forced on Linux we like Debian because it is so conservative (which can sometimes drive one crazy, especially if one needs some cutting edge feature). T. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 15.01.2013, at 00:28, Rich Shepard rshep...@appl-ecosys.com wrote: On Tue, 15 Jan 2013, T. E. Lawrence wrote: When forced on Linux we like Debian because it is so conservative (which can sometimes drive one crazy, especially if one needs some cutting edge feature). T. Take a look at Slackware, too. Well back from the bleeding edge, but that's available if you must. :-) Rich Slackware is an interesting thing. It is a distribution, as ancient as Debian, but far less known (at lest from the entrance of my cave). Unfortunately I have never had the time to get to know it, but I know reliable people who think very high of it. T. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 14/01/13 07:27, Shaun Thomas wrote: Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 stho...@optionshouse.com __ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email I would tend use Fedora for development, but would consider CentOS (or RHEL, if we had the budget) for production - I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
I use Ubuntu for development and production, it is rock solid. Thanks, Sunday Olutayo - Original Message - From: Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz To: Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org pgsql-general@postgresql.org Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 11:44:42 PM Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences? On 14/01/13 07:27, Shaun Thomas wrote: Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 stho...@optionshouse.com __ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email I would tend use Fedora for development, but would consider Cent OS (or RHEL, if we had the budget) for production - I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 01/13/2013 03:44 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: I would tend use Fedora for development, but would consider CentOS (or RHEL, if we had the budget) for production - I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. I happen to be doing my own research on this matter. I tend to lean more toward RHEL or CentOS for production servers just because there seem to be more people using it in that capacity and it seem to be easier to get solid support or advice for those. But I prefer Ubuntu for my laptop mainly because of the size of the community, available PPAs, ease of administration, etc... Ultimately, it seem to come down to what you are most familiar/comfortable managing. I don't see much practical difference between the distributions other than the versions of various software that they ship with by default. But that is usually rather easy to change according to your needs anyway. I've seen the opinion of avoid Ubuntu like the plague expressed many times, but it is never followed up with any solid reasoning. Can you (or anyone else) give specific details on exactly why you believe Ubuntu should be avoided? - Chris -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Chris Ernst cer...@zvelo.com wrote: I've seen the opinion of avoid Ubuntu like the plague expressed many times, but it is never followed up with any solid reasoning. Can you (or anyone else) give specific details on exactly why you believe Ubuntu should be avoided? I switched from Ubuntu to Debian a while ago, mainly on account of the desktop environment, but moving servers as well for consistency. Ubuntu has its advantages. At the moment, I'm half way through patching a Debian system to the latest kernel and a recent Upstart (rather than sysvinit), but Ubuntu already comes with a fairly recent kernel and Upstart is the default. So far, I haven't seen any particular reason to detest Ubuntu or Debian. Both of them quite happily run everything I want, although once it's been a year or two since the OS release, there's a strong tendency to build stuff from source rather than rely on the aptitude repositories - the repos lag a bit. But I'm okay with that. Maybe it's an issue for other situations, though, in which case it's a recommendation for Ubuntu probably. In terms of PostgreSQL, I've always been using the OpenSCG package, and have had no problems whatsoever (9.1). ChrisA -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Jan 13, 2013, at 10:27 AM, Shaun Thomas stho...@optionshouse.com wrote: Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. Either would be fine. RHEL is a bit more Enterprisey - which is either good or bad, depending on your use case. They're more conservative with updates than Ubuntu - which is good for service stability, but can be painful when you're stuck between using ancient versions of some app or stepping into the minefield of third party repos. (CentOS is pretty much just RHEL without support and without some of the management tools). Ubuntu LTS is solid, and has good support for running multiple Postgresql clusters simultaneously, which is very handy if you're supporting multiple apps against the same database server, and they require different releases. I've been told that they occasionally make incompatible changes across minor releases, which is Bad, but it's never happened anywhere I've noticed - I've no idea if it's an actual issue or Well, back in the 2004 release, they… folklore. I run both in production, both on VMs and real metal. I tend to use Ubuntu LTS for new installations just because I'm marginally more comfortable in the Ubuntu CLI environment, but there's really not much to choose between them. Cheers, Steve -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 14/01/13 13:07, Chris Ernst wrote: On 01/13/2013 03:44 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: I would tend use Fedora for development, but would consider CentOS (or RHEL, if we had the budget) for production - I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. I happen to be doing my own research on this matter. I tend to lean more toward RHEL or CentOS for production servers just because there seem to be more people using it in that capacity and it seem to be easier to get solid support or advice for those. But I prefer Ubuntu for my laptop mainly because of the size of the community, available PPAs, ease of administration, etc... Ultimately, it seem to come down to what you are most familiar/comfortable managing. I don't see much practical difference between the distributions other than the versions of various software that they ship with by default. But that is usually rather easy to change according to your needs anyway. I've seen the opinion of avoid Ubuntu like the plague expressed many times, but it is never followed up with any solid reasoning. Can you (or anyone else) give specific details on exactly why you believe Ubuntu should be avoided? - Chris 4 reasons: 1. One place where I worked Ubuntu was standard, I tried it and found that it lacked at least a couple of desktop features in GNOME 2 that I found very useful into Fedora. Fortunately, I was allowed to revert back to Fedora. Prior to that, I was using Fedora mainly by default. 2. Twice I came across features that I liked and Ubuntu seemed to imply they had done them, later I found the projects been initiated and sponsored largely by Red Hat. Especially as Red Hat is in the top ten contributors to the kernel, and the contribution of Ubuntu is not significant. 3. Ubuntu distributions are now starting to be filled with crapware and ant-privacy features features. 4. Ubuntu seems very good at collecting fanbois. If I were to change from Fedora, I would probably go back to Debian. Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Ubuntu did the marketing for linux and many more. Some people are just haters. Can you tell us about upstart? Sent from my LG Mobile Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote: On 14/01/13 13:07, Chris Ernst wrote: On 01/13/2013 03:44 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: I would tend use Fedora for development, but would consider CentOS (or RHEL, if we had the budget) for production - I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. I happen to be doing my own research on this matter. I tend to lean more toward RHEL or CentOS for production servers just because there seem to be more people using it in that capacity and it seem to be easier to get solid support or advice for those. But I prefer Ubuntu for my laptop mainly because of the size of the community, available PPAs, ease of administration, etc... Ultimately, it seem to come down to what you are most familiar/comfortable managing. I don't see much practical difference between the distributions other than the versions of various software that they ship with by default. But that is usually rather easy to change according to your needs anyway. I've seen the opinion of avoid Ubuntu like the plague expressed many times, but it is never followed up with any solid reasoning. Can you (or anyone else) give specific details on exactly why you believe Ubuntu should be avoided? - Chris 4 reasons: 1. One place where I worked Ubuntu was standard, I tried it and found that it lacked at least a couple of desktop features in GNOME 2 that I found very useful into Fedora. Fortunately, I was allowed to revert back to Fedora. Prior to that, I was using Fedora mainly by default. 2. Twice I came across features that I liked and Ubuntu seemed to imply they had done them, later I found the projects been initiated and sponsored largely by Red Hat. Especially as Red Hat is in the top ten contributors to the kernel, and the contribution of Ubuntu is not significant. 3. Ubuntu distributions are now starting to be filled with crapware and ant-privacy features features. 4. Ubuntu seems very good at collecting fanbois. If I were to change from Fedora, I would probably go back to Debian. Cheers, Gavin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Please don't top post, add your comments at the end as per the norm for this group. On 14/01/13 12:06, SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO wrote: Ubuntu did the marketing for linux and many more. Some people are just haters. Can you tell us about upstart? Sent from my LG Mobile Gavin Flower gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote: On 14/01/13 13:07, Chris Ernst wrote: On 01/13/2013 03:44 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: I would tend use Fedora for development, but would consider CentOS (or RHEL, if we had the budget) for production - I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. I happen to be doing my own research on this matter. I tend to lean more toward RHEL or CentOS for production servers just because there seem to be more people using it in that capacity and it seem to be easier to get solid support or advice for those. But I prefer Ubuntu for my laptop mainly because of the size of the community, available PPAs, ease of administration, etc... Ultimately, it seem to come down to what you are most familiar/comfortable managing. I don't see much practical difference between the distributions other than the versions of various software that they ship with by default. But that is usually rather easy to change according to your needs anyway. I've seen the opinion of avoid Ubuntu like the plague expressed many times, but it is never followed up with any solid reasoning. Can you (or anyone else) give specific details on exactly why you believe Ubuntu should be avoided? - Chris 4 reasons: 1. One place where I worked Ubuntu was standard, I tried it and found that it lacked at least a couple of desktop features in GNOME 2 that I found very useful into Fedora. Fortunately, I was allowed to revert back to Fedora. Prior to that, I was using Fedora mainly by default. 2. Twice I came across features that I liked and Ubuntu seemed to imply they had done them, later I found the projects been initiated and sponsored largely by Red Hat. Especially as Red Hat is in the top ten contributors to the kernel, and the contribution of Ubuntu is not significant. 3. Ubuntu distributions are now starting to be filled with crapware and ant-privacy features features. 4. Ubuntu seems very good at collecting fanbois. If I were to change from Fedora, I would probably go back to Debian. Cheers, Gavin I don't know much about 'upstart' - Fedora uses systemd: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd Cheers, Gavin -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 01/13/2013 04:07 PM, Chris Ernst wrote: On 01/13/2013 03:44 PM, Gavin Flower wrote: I've seen the opinion of avoid Ubuntu like the plague expressed many times, but it is never followed up with any solid reasoning. Can you (or anyone else) give specific details on exactly why you believe Ubuntu should be avoided? My take is that you have to look at Ubuntu as two distinct lines of distributions, desktop and server. I got into it for the desktop and stayed for the server. The avoid like a plague tag tends to apply to the desktop line and to an extent is valid. Canonical seems to be leading a parade of one on a new graphical look for the desktop. So if you use the desktop version and follow the six month release cycle you are in for a ride. You can avoid that somewhat by using a LTS desktop, but the change will come and you will have to deal. The server line on the other hand avoids the graphical desktop issue, so it tends to be less 'interesting'. If you stick with the LTS releases then it becomes even more stable. The nice part is that with PPAs you can backport newer releases of software to older LTS releases. For example and to get back on topic the Postgres PPA maintained by Martin Pitt: https://launchpad.net/~pitti/+archive/postgresql - Chris -- Adrian Klaver adrian.kla...@gmail.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Em 13/01/2013 16:27, Shaun Thomas escreveu: Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 stho...@optionshouse.com __ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ for terms and conditions related to this email I do use CentOS 5 and 6 for servers - they run without any glitches in decent servers. Don't use then on self made servers with strange/alternative SATA Raid controlers, it is the hell on earth. Use good hardware and you will be fine. Check the HCL of RedHat Enterprise. Edson -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. We run CentOS (mixture of 5 and 6, but 6 in all newer installations). I've never used Ubuntu so can't comment on it. We get PG from the PGDG repository, after disabling the distribution's PG installation in order to maintain tight control over the build/version. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO olut...@sadeeb.com wrote: 4 reasons: 1. One place where I worked Ubuntu was standard, I tried it and found that it lacked at least a couple of desktop features in GNOME 2 that I found very useful into Fedora. Fortunately, I was allowed to revert back to Fedora. Prior to that, I was using Fedora mainly by default. 2. Twice I came across features that I liked and Ubuntu seemed to imply they had done them, later I found the projects been initiated and sponsored largely by Red Hat. Especially as Red Hat is in the top ten contributors to the kernel, and the contribution of Ubuntu is not significant. 3. Ubuntu distributions are now starting to be filled with crapware and ant-privacy features features. 4. Ubuntu seems very good at collecting fanbois. Not one of those is a good reason to avoid Ubuntu server for pgsql. There are reasons to not use it, but those are not them. I've run PostgreSQL servers on Redhat (before RHEL existed and there was JUST Redhat) 5.1, RHEL 4, 5 and 6, Debian Lenny and Squeeze, just one on an old version of Suse, and on Ubuntu server 8.04LTS and 10.04LTS and 12.04LTS. My preference personally is for debian based distros since they support the rather more elegant pg wrappers that allow you to run multiple versions and multiple clusters of those versions with very easy commands. RHEL is great for building a stable but not necessarily ultra faster server, and if you can afford their commercial support it IS top notch. Debian and Ubuntu feel much the same to me, from the command line, on a server. The reasons to NOT use ubuntu under PostgreSQL are primarily that 1: they often choose a pretty meh grade kernel with performance regressions for their initial LTS release. I.e. they'll choose a 3.4.0 kernel over a very stable 3.2.latest kernel, and then patch away til the LTS becomes stable. This is especially problematic the first 6 to 12 months after an LTS release. Ubuntu support is a pitiful thing compared to RHEL support. I've reported bugs for RHEL that were fixed within weeks, or at least a workaround came out pretty quick. I've reported LTS bugs that are now YEARS old and Canonical has done NOTHING to fix them. There's a bug in 10.04LTS workstation for instance that meant you couldn't have 1 profile for a given WAP. Never fixed. Only recommendation was to upgrade. From an LTS. sigh. There are reasons TO use Ubuntu as well. Of if you are running very late model hardware you can't get good support from an older release, and using a more recent, possibly not LTS release is a good way to get best performance. I have often installed a late model release like 11.10, to get support for odd / new / interesting / high performance hardware, and then at a later date could update that platform to an LTS release for stability. Note that I often waited til a good 3 or 4 months after the next release before I even started testing it, let alone upgrading to it. Ubuntu often has fairly late model versions of many packages like pgsql or php or whatever that more RHEL like distros will not get due to their longer release cycles. It's easier to add a ppa: repo to debian or ubuntu than to add an RPM repo to RHEL and I've found they're usually better maintained and / or more up to date. Simple answer of course is that there is no simple answer. Frequently released / updated distros (fedora, ubuntu non-LTS, debian beta and so on) are GREAT for doing initial development on, as once the stable branch based on it comes out you'll be deploying against something with a long stable release branch. So the latest version of Ruby, Perl, PHP, Python and so on are on the server, as are the latest, or nearly so, versions of pgsql and slony and other packages. Long term distros (debian stable, Ubuntu LTS, RHEL) are all good for deploying things on you don't need the latest and greatest hardware support nor the absolute fastest performance but instead stability are paramount. When downtime costs you $10k a minute, using the latest code is not always the best idea. Most importantly, if you've got LOTS of talent for one distro or another, you're probably best off exploiting it. If 95% of all the developers and ops crew run Ubuntu or Debian, stick to one of them. If they favor Fedora / RHEL stick to that. If they work on windows, find a new job if at all possible. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
Em 14/01/2013 01:46, Scott Marlowe escreveu: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO olut...@sadeeb.com wrote: 4 reasons: 1. One place where I worked Ubuntu was standard, I tried it and found that it lacked at least a couple of desktop features in GNOME 2 that I found very useful into Fedora. Fortunately, I was allowed to revert back to Fedora. Prior to that, I was using Fedora mainly by default. 2. Twice I came across features that I liked and Ubuntu seemed to imply they had done them, later I found the projects been initiated and sponsored largely by Red Hat. Especially as Red Hat is in the top ten contributors to the kernel, and the contribution of Ubuntu is not significant. 3. Ubuntu distributions are now starting to be filled with crapware and ant-privacy features features. 4. Ubuntu seems very good at collecting fanbois. Not one of those is a good reason to avoid Ubuntu server for pgsql. There are reasons to not use it, but those are not them. I've run PostgreSQL servers on Redhat (before RHEL existed and there was JUST Redhat) 5.1, RHEL 4, 5 and 6, Debian Lenny and Squeeze, just one on an old version of Suse, and on Ubuntu server 8.04LTS and 10.04LTS and 12.04LTS. My preference personally is for debian based distros since they support the rather more elegant pg wrappers that allow you to run multiple versions and multiple clusters of those versions with very easy commands. RHEL is great for building a stable but not necessarily ultra faster server, and if you can afford their commercial support it IS top notch. Debian and Ubuntu feel much the same to me, from the command line, on a server. Do you have any fact that support RHEL being slower than others? I would like to improve our servers if we can get some ideas - so far, we have tried Ubuntu LTS servers, and seems just as fast as RHEL for PostgreSQL (tests made by issuing heavy queries). Thanks, Edson The reasons to NOT use ubuntu under PostgreSQL are primarily that 1: they often choose a pretty meh grade kernel with performance regressions for their initial LTS release. I.e. they'll choose a 3.4.0 kernel over a very stable 3.2.latest kernel, and then patch away til the LTS becomes stable. This is especially problematic the first 6 to 12 months after an LTS release. Ubuntu support is a pitiful thing compared to RHEL support. I've reported bugs for RHEL that were fixed within weeks, or at least a workaround came out pretty quick. I've reported LTS bugs that are now YEARS old and Canonical has done NOTHING to fix them. There's a bug in 10.04LTS workstation for instance that meant you couldn't have 1 profile for a given WAP. Never fixed. Only recommendation was to upgrade. From an LTS. sigh. There are reasons TO use Ubuntu as well. Of if you are running very late model hardware you can't get good support from an older release, and using a more recent, possibly not LTS release is a good way to get best performance. I have often installed a late model release like 11.10, to get support for odd / new / interesting / high performance hardware, and then at a later date could update that platform to an LTS release for stability. Note that I often waited til a good 3 or 4 months after the next release before I even started testing it, let alone upgrading to it. Ubuntu often has fairly late model versions of many packages like pgsql or php or whatever that more RHEL like distros will not get due to their longer release cycles. It's easier to add a ppa: repo to debian or ubuntu than to add an RPM repo to RHEL and I've found they're usually better maintained and / or more up to date. Simple answer of course is that there is no simple answer. Frequently released / updated distros (fedora, ubuntu non-LTS, debian beta and so on) are GREAT for doing initial development on, as once the stable branch based on it comes out you'll be deploying against something with a long stable release branch. So the latest version of Ruby, Perl, PHP, Python and so on are on the server, as are the latest, or nearly so, versions of pgsql and slony and other packages. Long term distros (debian stable, Ubuntu LTS, RHEL) are all good for deploying things on you don't need the latest and greatest hardware support nor the absolute fastest performance but instead stability are paramount. When downtime costs you $10k a minute, using the latest code is not always the best idea. Most importantly, if you've got LOTS of talent for one distro or another, you're probably best off exploiting it. If 95% of all the developers and ops crew run Ubuntu or Debian, stick to one of them. If they favor Fedora / RHEL stick to that. If they work on windows, find a new job if at all possible. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 14/01/13 16:46, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO olut...@sadeeb.com wrote: 4 reasons: 1. One place where I worked Ubuntu was standard, I tried it and found that it lacked at least a couple of desktop features in GNOME 2 that I found very useful into Fedora. Fortunately, I was allowed to revert back to Fedora. Prior to that, I was using Fedora mainly by default. 2. Twice I came across features that I liked and Ubuntu seemed to imply they had done them, later I found the projects been initiated and sponsored largely by Red Hat. Especially as Red Hat is in the top ten contributors to the kernel, and the contribution of Ubuntu is not significant. 3. Ubuntu distributions are now starting to be filled with crapware and ant-privacy features features. 4. Ubuntu seems very good at collecting fanbois. Not one of those is a good reason to avoid Ubuntu server for pgsql. There are reasons to not use it, but those are not them. I've run PostgreSQL servers on Redhat (before RHEL existed and there was JUST Redhat) 5.1, RHEL 4, 5 and 6, Debian Lenny and Squeeze, just one on an old version of Suse, and on Ubuntu server 8.04LTS and 10.04LTS and 12.04LTS. My preference personally is for debian based distros since they support the rather more elegant pg wrappers that allow you to run multiple versions and multiple clusters of those versions with very easy commands. RHEL is great for building a stable but not necessarily ultra faster server, and if you can afford their commercial support it IS top notch. Debian and Ubuntu feel much the same to me, from the command line, on a server. The reasons to NOT use ubuntu under PostgreSQL are primarily that 1: they often choose a pretty meh grade kernel with performance regressions for their initial LTS release. I.e. they'll choose a 3.4.0 kernel over a very stable 3.2.latest kernel, and then patch away til the LTS becomes stable. This is especially problematic the first 6 to 12 months after an LTS release. Ubuntu support is a pitiful thing compared to RHEL support. I've reported bugs for RHEL that were fixed within weeks, or at least a workaround came out pretty quick. I've reported LTS bugs that are now YEARS old and Canonical has done NOTHING to fix them. There's a bug in 10.04LTS workstation for instance that meant you couldn't have 1 profile for a given WAP. Never fixed. Only recommendation was to upgrade. From an LTS. sigh. There are reasons TO use Ubuntu as well. Of if you are running very late model hardware you can't get good support from an older release, and using a more recent, possibly not LTS release is a good way to get best performance. I have often installed a late model release like 11.10, to get support for odd / new / interesting / high performance hardware, and then at a later date could update that platform to an LTS release for stability. Note that I often waited til a good 3 or 4 months after the next release before I even started testing it, let alone upgrading to it. Ubuntu often has fairly late model versions of many packages like pgsql or php or whatever that more RHEL like distros will not get due to their longer release cycles. It's easier to add a ppa: repo to debian or ubuntu than to add an RPM repo to RHEL and I've found they're usually better maintained and / or more up to date. Simple answer of course is that there is no simple answer. Frequently released / updated distros (fedora, ubuntu non-LTS, debian beta and so on) are GREAT for doing initial development on, as once the stable branch based on it comes out you'll be deploying against something with a long stable release branch. So the latest version of Ruby, Perl, PHP, Python and so on are on the server, as are the latest, or nearly so, versions of pgsql and slony and other packages. Long term distros (debian stable, Ubuntu LTS, RHEL) are all good for deploying things on you don't need the latest and greatest hardware support nor the absolute fastest performance but instead stability are paramount. When downtime costs you $10k a minute, using the latest code is not always the best idea. Most importantly, if you've got LOTS of talent for one distro or another, you're probably best off exploiting it. If 95% of all the developers and ops crew run Ubuntu or Debian, stick to one of them. If they favor Fedora / RHEL stick to that. If they work on windows, find a new job if at all possible. I have zero experience of setting up Linux as a _PRODUCTION_ server. If I had to support one myself, I would probably consider RHEL. Anyhow, I would do some serious research before making a final decision. Even if I had made such a decision a year ago, I would still need to reassess the situation if I had to do it again - things keep changing. I would be very reluctant to choose an Apple or Microsoft O/S for a production server. Cheers, Gavin
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Scott Marlowe scott.marl...@gmail.com wrote: Most importantly, if you've got LOTS of talent for one distro or another, you're probably best off exploiting it. If 95% of all the developers and ops crew run Ubuntu or Debian, stick to one of them. If they favor Fedora / RHEL stick to that. If they work on windows, find a new job if at all possible. +1. It's the little things that make the difference; I can casually switch across from any of our client boxes to any of our servers, because they ALL run Debian Squeeze. And my home boxes and my personal server are also all either Debian Squeeze or some flavour of Ubuntu. Keep things as similar as possible and you avoid wasting time over trivialities like whether you can run ifconfig without becoming root first, or which shells and scripting languages you have available (for me, Python, bash, and Pike cover all my normal needs). Downtime costs you, yes, but also, don't keep your developers waiting, child! Why, their time is worth a thousand pounds a minute (in 1871 currency). And +1 to the last comment, too :) ChrisA -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] Linux Distribution Preferences?
On 2013-01-14 00:44, Gavin Flower wrote: On 14/01/13 07:27, Shaun Thomas wrote: Hey guys, I'm not sure the last time I saw this discussion, but I was somewhat curious: what would be your ideal Linux distribution for a nice solid PostgreSQL installation? We've kinda bounced back and forth between RHEL, CentOS, and Ubuntu LTS, so I was wondering what everyone else thought. -- Shaun Thomas OptionsHouse | 141 W. Jackson Blvd | Suite 500 | Chicago IL, 60604 312-676-8870 stho...@optionshouse.com __ See http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ [1] for terms and conditions related to this email I would tend use Fedora for development, but would consider CentOS (or RHEL, if we had the budget) for production - I avoid Ubuntu like the plague. Cheers, Gavin Links: -- [1] http://www.peak6.com/email_disclaimer/ I use Slackware and for me it's the perfect one. Some words are rotating in my mind: There is no good or bad linux, exists only one that which you know and can work. Cheers, Hristo -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
