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 &
> > well supported release for Production. IMHO, that's RHEL 5.x or
> > CentOS 5.x. Of course the latest SLES & UBuntu schtuff are also fine.
> > In other words, unless you've got a really good reason for it, stay
> > away from Fedora & OpenSuse for production usage.
> Lots of conflicting opinions and results in this thread. Also, a lot of
> hand waving and speculation. :-)
> RHEL and CentOS are particular bad *right now*. See here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RHEL
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS
Talk about "hand waving and speculation" - you are citing Wikipedia as a
source?!
> For RHEL, look down to "Release History" and RHEL 5.3 based on
> Linux-2.6.18, released March, 2007. On the CentOS page you'll see it is
> dated April, 2007. CentOS is identical to RHEL on purpose, but always 1
> to 6 months after the RHEL, since they take the RHEL source, re-build
> it, and then re-test it.
Maybe that is the kernel version - but it isn't a vanilla kernel.
Comparing kernel versions between distros is a dodgy business as they
all have their own patch sets and backports of patches.
> Linux is up to Linux-2.6.31.1 right now:
> http://www.kernel.org/
And I very much doubt kernel version is a significant factor in
performance unless you hit one of the lemon versions.
> Personally, I use Fedora, and my servers have been quite stable. One of
> our main web servers running Fedora:
> [mark@bambi]~% uptime
> 09:45:41 up 236 days, 10:07, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.04, 0.08
gourd-amber:~ # uptime
8:28am up 867 days 12:30, 1 user, load average: 0.24, 0.18, 0.10
