On 16 May 2001 02:59:02 +0000, Per-Olof Pettersson wrote:
> Redhat is sort of an industry-standard beqause it is relatively easy to
> configure but I would personally not recommend it for a Server-OS.
>
> As for the choice of filesystem.
> ext2 (which most linux use) has somewhat poorer performance on
> character-writing than eg UFS (which FreeBSD use) but I think the
> programmers on PostgreSQL have solved this with good caching and
> block-writing-routines ;-)
Funny thing is that SGI have rpms for RedHat XFS install... XFS is a
server file system is it not?
RedHat can be made into a server OS it just takes some work. Read the
excellent http://www.linuxdoc.org/links/p_books.html#securing_linux
I use it because it was the first CD in a 6 cd set I bought. I have
tried others (I ran Suze for about 10 months on a server and I found
that to be worse...). Debian and Slackware have a reputation of being
too hard to install.
I would personnaly choose FreeBSD for the PostgreSQL server and RedHat
as the client workstation.
Cheers
Tony Grant
--
RedHat Linux on Sony Vaio C1XD/S
http://www.animaproductions.com/linux2.html
Macromedia UltraDev with PostgreSQL
http://www.animaproductions.com/ultra.html
