On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:54 PM, Edson Richter <edsonrichter@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.
