Re: Linux Distribution Preferences? - Mailing list pgsql-general
From | Edson Richter |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Linux Distribution Preferences? |
Date | |
Msg-id | BLU0-SMTP96D19103AB70C408279541CF2E0@phx.gbl Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Linux Distribution Preferences? (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Linux Distribution Preferences?
Re: Linux Distribution Preferences? |
List | pgsql-general |
Em 14/01/2013 01:46, Scott Marlowe escreveu: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM, SUNDAY A. OLUTAYO <olutayo@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. > >
pgsql-general by date: