Le jeudi 08 octobre 2009 15:40:53, Matthew Wakeling a écrit :
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Jean-Michel Pouré wrote:
Go for Debian:
* It is a free community, very active.
* It is guaranteed to be upgradable.
* Very easy to administrate via apt-get.
http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20091007
If
Cédric Villemain cedric.villem...@dalibo.com writes:
If you want the latest and greatest, then you can use Debian testing.
testing and sid are usually the same with a 15 days delay.
And receive no out-of-band security updates, so you keep the holes for
3 days when lucky, and 10 to 15 days
On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Jean-Michel Pouré wrote:
Go for Debian:
* It is a free community, very active.
* It is guaranteed to be upgradable.
* Very easy to administrate via apt-get.
http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20091007
If you like Debian, but want to use FreeBSD, now you can have both.
Am 05.10.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Karl Denninger:
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 20:06 schrieb Karl Denninger:
gjournal, no. ZFS has potential stability issues - I am VERY
interested
in it when those are resolved. It looks good on a test platform
but I'm
unwilling to run it in
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 23:44 schrieb Karl Denninger:
Turn on softupdates. Fsck is deferred and the system comes up almost
instantly even with TB-sized partitions; the fsck then cleans up the
cruft.
Last time, I checked, there was a issue with background-fsck.
I will give it a
Scott Marlowe wrote:
Personally, I use Fedora, and my servers have been quite stable. One of our
main web servers running Fedora:
It's not that there can't be stable releases of FC, it's that it's not
the focus of that project. So, if you get lucky, great! I can't
imagine running a
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 15:51 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
How do you provide effective support for a kernel that has 3000 back
ported patches against it?
This is again nonsense. Red Hat employs top kernel hackers. They do
maintain vanilla kernel. It is not hard for Red Hat to maintain their
own
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 15:16 +0530, S Arvind wrote:
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres
alone. The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200
+. Performance on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
Go for Debian:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 15:51 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
If somebody were to come to you with a *new* deployment request, what
would you recommend? Would you really recommend RHEL 5 *today*?
Well, I would, and I do recommend people. RHEL5 is well-tested, and
stable. Many hardware vendors support
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:05 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
On 10/01/2009 03:44 PM, Denis Lussier wrote:
I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise
(except that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely).
On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a newer, popular
Maybe - if the only thing the server is running is PostgreSQL. Show of
hands - how many users who ONLY install PostgreSQL, and use a bare
minimum OS install, choosing to not run any other software? Now, how
many people ALSO run things like PHP, and require software more
up-to-date than 3
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:00 AM, Craig James craig_ja...@emolecules.com wrote:
Fedora is a very nice project, but it's not suitable for production database
servers.
The trick is to write such a kick-ass application that before the
Fedora support window ends, the load has increased enough that
Robert Haas wrote (in part):
Also, I'd just like to mention that vi is a much better editor than
emacs.
That is not my impression. I have used vi from when it first came out (I
used ed before that) until about 1998 when I first installed Linux on one of
my machines and started using emacs. I
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 09:37 -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
Robert Haas wrote (in part):
Also, I'd just like to mention that vi is a much better editor than
emacs.
That is not my impression. I have used vi from when it first came out (I
used ed before that) until about 1998 when I first
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
On Mon, 2009-10-05 at 12:07 +0200, Jean-Michel Pouré wrote:
Go for Debian:
* It is a free community, very active.
Well, we need to state that this is not a unique feature.
* It is guaranteed to be upgradable.
Depends. I had lots of issues
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/3/09 7:35 PM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I am a particular fan of FreeBSD, and in some benchmarking I did between it
and CentOS FreeBSD 7.x literally wiped the floor with the CentOS release I
tried on IDENTICAL hardware.
I also like the 3ware raid
However, I have certainly seen some inefficiencies with Linux and large use
of shared memory -- and I wouldn't be surprised if these problems don't
exist on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris.
This came on the freebsd-performance-list a few days ago.
On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/3/09 7:35 PM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net
mailto:k...@denninger.net wrote:
I am a particular fan of FreeBSD, and in some benchmarking I did between it
and CentOS FreeBSD 7.x
Claus Guttesen wrote:
However, I have certainly seen some inefficiencies with Linux and large use
of shared memory -- and I wouldn't be surprised if these problems don't
exist on FreeBSD or OpenSolaris.
This came on the freebsd-performance-list a few days ago.
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 19:42 schrieb Karl Denninger:
I have not yet benchmarked FreeBSD 8.x - my production systems are
all on FreeBSD 7.x at present. The improvement going there from 6.x
was MASSIVE. 8.x is on my plate to start playing with in the next
couple of months.
Did you
Am 05.10.2009 um 19:42 schrieb Karl Denninger:
I have not yet benchmarked FreeBSD 8.x - my production systems are
all on FreeBSD 7.x at present. The improvement going there from 6.x
was MASSIVE. 8.x is on my plate to start playing with in the next
couple of months.
Did you ever try
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I don't run the 3x series 3ware boards. If I recall correctly they're not
true coprocessor boards and rely on the host CPU. Those are always going to
be a lose compared to a true coprocessor with dedicated
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Mark Mielke wrote:
I can show you tickets where RedHat has specifically state they *will
not* update the kernel to better support new hardware, for fear of
breaking support for older hardware.
There are two reasonable paths you'll find in the Open Source world, which
On 10/5/09 11:15 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/5/09 10:27 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I don't run the 3x series 3ware boards. If I recall correctly they're not
true coprocessor boards and rely on the host CPU. Those are always
Scott Carey wrote:
On 10/5/09 11:15 AM, Karl Denninger k...@denninger.net wrote:
I'm running the 9650s in most of my busier machines. Haven't tried a
PERC card yet - its on my list. Most of my stuff is configured as RAID
1 although I have a couple of RAID 10 arrays in service; depending
Claus Guttesen kome...@gmail.com wrote:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=13001+0+current/freebsd-performance
Not being particularly passionate about any OS, I've been intrigued by
the FreeBSD benchmarks. However, management is reluctant to use boxes
which don't have
Am 05.10.2009 um 20:06 schrieb Karl Denninger:
gjournal, no. ZFS has potential stability issues - I am VERY
interested
in it when those are resolved. It looks good on a test platform but
I'm
unwilling to run it in production; there are both reports of crashes
and
I have been able to
Claus Guttesen kome...@gmail.com wrote:
http://docs.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=13001+0+current/freebsd-performance
Not being particularly passionate about any OS, I've been intrigued by
the FreeBSD benchmarks. However, management is reluctant to use boxes
which don't have
Axel Rau wrote:
Am 05.10.2009 um 20:06 schrieb Karl Denninger:
gjournal, no. ZFS has potential stability issues - I am VERY interested
in it when those are resolved. It looks good on a test platform but I'm
unwilling to run it in production; there are both reports of crashes and
I have
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:35 AM, Adam Tauno Williams
awill...@opengroupware.us wrote:
Maybe - if the only thing the server is running is PostgreSQL. Show of
hands - how many users who ONLY install PostgreSQL, and use a bare
minimum OS install, choosing to not run any other software? Now, how
On 10/01/2009 03:44 PM, Denis Lussier wrote:
I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise
(except that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely).
On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a newer, popular
well supported release for Production. IMHO, that's RHEL
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:05 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
RHEL and CentOS are particular bad *right now*. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHEL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
For RHEL, look down to Release History and RHEL 5.3 based on
Linux-2.6.18, released March, 2007.
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Devrim G?ND?Z wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:05 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
RHEL and CentOS are particular bad *right now*. See here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHEL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
For RHEL, look down to Release History and RHEL 5.3 based
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc wrote:
On 10/01/2009 03:44 PM, Denis Lussier wrote:
I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise (except
that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely).
On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a
This is kind of OT, unless somebody really is concerned with
understanding the + and - of distributions, and is willing to believe
the content of this thread as being accurate and objective... :-)
On 10/04/2009 08:42 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Mark
I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise (except
that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely).
On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a newer, popular well
supported release for Production. IMHO, that's RHEL 5.x or CentOS 5.x. Of
course the latest SLES
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:46 AM, S Arvind arvindw...@gmail.com wrote:
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
FreeBSD isn't Linux.
Don't run Fedora, it undergoes way too much Churn.
No real difference between CentOS and RedHat.
I personally prefer openSUSE (or SLES/SLED if you want their
Denis Lussier wrote:
I'm a BSD license fan, but, I don't know much about *BSD otherwise
(except that many advocates say it runs PG very nicely).
On the Linux side, unless your a dweeb, go with a newer, popular
well supported release for Production. IMHO, that's RHEL 5.x or
CentOS 5.x. Of
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server
which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database
around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
I see nobody suggesting Solaris... ZFS is
I see nobody suggesting Solaris... ZFS is supposed to be a
very nice FS...
(of course, it's not a linux flavor...)
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
For comparison, with Red Hat, you will need to upgrade to a whole new
distribution whenever you want updated software, which is a much bigger
undertaking.
This is somewhat true for larger packages, but it's not
Matthew Wakeling matt...@flymine.org writes:
The reason we switched that machine to Debian was due to the
postgresql-devel package being missing for Red Hat. We need that package
in order to install some of our more interesting extensions. A quick look
at
S Arvind wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres
alone. The postgres must handle greater number of database around
200+. Performance on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
-Arvind S
We use Arch Linux and love
On 10/02/2009 10:23 AM, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
You switched OSes instead of complaining to the repository maintainer
that he'd forgotten a subpackage? You must have a lot of time on your
hands.
Camel's back, straw.
Besides, both I and our sysadmin are
* Mark Mielke m...@mark.mielke.cc [091002 11:41]:
... until you move on and leave the company with some hacked up Debian
installs that nobody knows how to manage.
Could be worse, they could leave a Redhat/CentOS box that *can't* be
managed
emacs anyone?
/duck and run, promising not to post
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 4:46 AM, S Arvind arvindw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora,
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
The reason we switched that machine to Debian was due to the
postgresql-devel package being missing for Red Hat. We need that package
in order to install some of our more interesting extensions. A quick
look at
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:46 AM, S Arvind arvindw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora,
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Jon Nelson wrote:
I personally prefer openSUSE (or SLES/SLED if you want their
commerical offering). I find it faster, more up-to-date (but no
churn), and in general higher quality - it just works. I find
postgresql *substantially* faster on openSUSE than CentOS, but that's
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I know I'm in the minority here, but I _always_ compile postgresql
myself directly from official sources. It's easy enough and you never
know when you have to do an emergency patch or cassert build, etc.
That requires one take all of the security
Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
I know I'm in the minority here, but I _always_ compile postgresql
myself directly from official sources. It's easy enough and you
never know when you have to do an emergency patch or cassert build,
etc.
A minority, perhaps; but I'm there with
On 10/02/2009 01:20 PM, Merlin Moncure wrote:
I know I'm in the minority here, but I _always_ compile postgresql
myself directly from official sources. It's easy enough and you never
know when you have to do an emergency patch or cassert build, etc.
+1
I decided to do this as soon as I
Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com writes:
The trick I suggest people who use packaged builds get familiar with is
knowing that if you run pg_config and look for the CONFIGURE line, you'll
find out exactly what options were used by the builder of the package you
have, when they compiled the
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us writes:
It's worth your time to learn how to do this on whatever system you
prefer to use. Then, if you're ever in a situation where you really
need patch XYZ right now, you can easily add that patch to the package
sources and rebuild a custom version that will
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
-Arvind S
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote:
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone. The
postgres
must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance on speed is the
vital
factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
For starters, FreeBSD isn't
S Arvind wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres
alone. The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+.
Performance on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
-Arvind S
I do not know the others,
For example i mentioned few linux name only, if any one linux other then
this also u can prescribe. Our servers needs to be more stable one, as Jean
told we cant upgrade our OS often. For the Postgres8.3 can u tell me the
best one. Factor is purely performance and i/o since our storage server
Matthew Wakeling wrote:
For starters, FreeBSD isn't Linux at all. Secondly, the other three
options you have listed are all Red Hat versions - not much variety there.
The main difference between those is that Fedora tries to be the latest and
greatest. This implies that you must reinstall or
Thanks Jean,
So from the discussion is it true that performance will be same across
all newly upgraded linux is it?
Thanks,
Arvind S
*
Many of lifes failure are people who did not realize how close they were to
success when they gave up.
-Thomas Edison
*
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM,
-Original Message-
From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-performance-
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+.
Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Jean-David Beyer jeandav...@verizon.net writes:
The theory with the Red Hat Enterprise Linux distribution is that you run
with what comes with it. All the stuff that comes with it is guaranteed to
work together. Red Hat do not add features, change any interfaces, etc. Then
they support it for
Eric thanks. And its not 200 differnet server , its only single pg8.3
handling 200+ dbs.
Arvind S
Many of lifes failure are people who did not realize how close they were to
success when they gave up.
-Thomas Edison
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Haszlakiewicz, Eric
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Matthew Wakeling wrote:
For comparison, with Red Hat, you will need to upgrade to a whole new
distribution whenever you want updated software, which is a much bigger
undertaking.
This is somewhat true for larger packages, but it's not the case for
PostgreSQL. You
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote:
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone. The
postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Generally the fastest Linux distribution is whichever one is built using
the
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, S Arvind wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora, Redhat xxx??
as noted by others
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:46 AM, S Arvind arvindw...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
What is the best Linux flavor for server which runs postgres alone.
The postgres must handle greater number of database around 200+. Performance
on speed is the vital factor.
Is it FreeBSD, CentOS, Fedora,
67 matches
Mail list logo
