Thread: Best Linux Distribution
I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution like:
whitebox
RHEL
Fedora
RHEL
Fedora
Suse
Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an answer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Esteban Kemp wrote: > I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linuxdistribution like: > > whitebox > RHEL RHEL is not free (of charge). > Fedora > Suse SLES is again not free of charge. > Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an answer All have PostgreSQL included within the distribution. IMHO, Red Hat Enterprise Linux (Or WBEL, its clone...) is the best among these... Red Hat also has an application server which has Tomcat installed, AFAIR. Regards, - -- Devrim GUNDUZ devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.tdmsoft.com http://www.gunduz.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFB7m0ltl86P3SPfQ4RAri9AKCHMJgrgb2V9+U/4KlwWPk3zHjrOQCY02WE hiHnUsWBk/6xkOTcV0DD/Q== =gbuj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain or tune :) Hope this helps, On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:14:00AM -0300, Esteban Kemp wrote: > I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and > Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution > like: > > whitebox > RHEL > Fedora > Suse > > Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an answer -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a > tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone > else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
Attachment
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > Hi, > > On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Esteban Kemp wrote: > >> I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and >> Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution like: >> >> whitebox >> RHEL > > > RHEL is not free (of charge). > >> Fedora >> Suse > > > SLES is again not free of charge. You can download a variation of SuSE 9.2 pro now. I say a variation because it's a dvd iso which is around 4g, whereas the dvd that comes with the boxed 9.2 pro is a dual-layer and +7g. I don't know what the differences are between the two. -- Until later, Geoffrey
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever >distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no >point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain >or tune :) > > Actually there is a difference from PostgreSQL's point of view :) Namely in filesystems. The default filesystem on whitebox, RHEL and Fedora is EXT3 which really isn't that great. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >Hope this helps, > >On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:14:00AM -0300, Esteban Kemp wrote: > > >>I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and >>Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution >>like: >> >>whitebox >>RHEL >>Fedora >>Suse >> >>Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an answer >> >> -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
You should look www.linuxiso.org.
There you may find the ISO of a great variety of distros.
C ya,
Bruno Almeida do Lago
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 1:01 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
Devrim GUNDUZ wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 8 Jan 2005, Esteban Kemp wrote:
>
>> I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and
>> Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution like:
>>
>> whitebox
>> RHEL
>
>
> RHEL is not free (of charge).
>
>> Fedora
>> Suse
>
>
> SLES is again not free of charge.
You can download a variation of SuSE 9.2 pro now. I say a variation
because it's a dvd iso which is around 4g, whereas the dvd that comes
with the boxed 9.2 pro is a dual-layer and +7g.
I don't know what the differences are between the two.
--
Until later, Geoffrey
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > >> No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever >> distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no >> point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain >> or tune :) >> >> > Actually there is a difference from PostgreSQL's point of view :) > Namely in filesystems. The default filesystem on whitebox, RHEL and > Fedora is EXT3 which really isn't that great. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake Out of curiousity, which fs would you recommend for a ~terabyte oltp db? -- _______________________________ This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. _______________________________
When I had customers faced with this decision, we made the
recommendation based on which distro employs major contributors
of the software project in question.
For Postgresql's case, RedHat's employment of Tom made
our recommendation to use Red Hat.
Some of our clients are running .NET front ends, so we're
recommending Novel/SuSE for those.
It's a mix of superstition that the vendors platform is
may see earlier testing, along with rewarding the vendor
for supporting the project.
Ron
PS: All you open source vendors who employ important
developers -- Thank You - this contribution does not go unnoticed.
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever
> distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no
> point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain
> or tune :)
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:14:00AM -0300, Esteban Kemp wrote:
>
>>I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and
>>Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution
>>like:
>>
>>whitebox
>>RHEL
>>Fedora
>>Suse
>>
>>Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an answer
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:03:31 -0800, Joshua D. Drake <jd@www.commandprompt.com> wrote: > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > >No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever > >distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no > >point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain > >or tune :) > > > > > Actually there is a difference from PostgreSQL's point of view :) > Namely in filesystems. The default filesystem on whitebox, RHEL and > Fedora is EXT3 which really isn't that great. On whitebox & RHEL ext3 is really the only choice. However, FC3 provides all the other major filesystems as choices (XFS, reiser). -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman netllama@gmail.com LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
>>>Sincerely, >>> >>>Joshua D. Drake >>> >>> >>Out of curiousity, which fs would you recommend for a ~terabyte oltp db? >> >> > >XFS without a doubt. XFS has excellent large file (and filesystem) support. > > I second the XFS statement. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 09:19:33 -0800, Bricklen Anderson <BAnderson@presinet.com> wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > > >> No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever > >> distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no > >> point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain > >> or tune :) > >> > >> > > Actually there is a difference from PostgreSQL's point of view :) > > Namely in filesystems. The default filesystem on whitebox, RHEL and > > Fedora is EXT3 which really isn't that great. > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Joshua D. Drake > > Out of curiousity, which fs would you recommend for a ~terabyte oltp db? XFS without a doubt. XFS has excellent large file (and filesystem) support. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman netllama@gmail.com LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
Lonni J Friedman wrote: > > On whitebox & RHEL ext3 is really the only choice. However, FC3 > provides all the other major filesystems as choices (XFS, reiser). I just tried to install FC3 AMD64, and the only choice it would give me for an installation was ext3. Since I prefer Reiser, I gave up and installed Gentoo. -- Guy Rouillier
Guy Rouillier wrote: >Lonni J Friedman wrote: > > >>On whitebox & RHEL ext3 is really the only choice. However, FC3 >>provides all the other major filesystems as choices (XFS, reiser). >> >> > >I just tried to install FC3 AMD64, and the only choice it would give me >for an installation was ext3. Since I prefer Reiser, I gave up and > > I am running FC3 with XFS :) >installed Gentoo.' > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Guy Rouillier wrote: >> On whitebox & RHEL ext3 is really the only choice. However, FC3 >> provides all the other major filesystems as choices (XFS, reiser). > > I just tried to install FC3 AMD64, and the only choice it would give me > for an installation was ext3. Since I prefer Reiser, I gave up and > installed Gentoo. AFAIR, if you run anaconda with linux reiserfs then reiserfs will appear among available file lists. Regards, - -- Devrim GUNDUZ devrim~gunduz.org, devrim~PostgreSQL.org, devrim.gunduz~linux.org.tr http://www.tdmsoft.com http://www.gunduz.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFB7rdutl86P3SPfQ4RAkV1AJ46FLnDuLRDYvNQj/OGC8ck1JpobQCbBih+ +/gKEgPZFRBfMAJPP5uWbVM= =NwkB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 21:39:23 +0200 (EET), Devrim GUNDUZ <devrim@gunduz.org> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Guy Rouillier wrote: > > >> On whitebox & RHEL ext3 is really the only choice. However, FC3 > >> provides all the other major filesystems as choices (XFS, reiser). > > > > I just tried to install FC3 AMD64, and the only choice it would give me > > for an installation was ext3. Since I prefer Reiser, I gave up and > > installed Gentoo. > > AFAIR, if you run anaconda with > > linux reiserfs > > then reiserfs will appear among available file lists. That is correct. It works similarly for xfs. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ L. Friedman netllama@gmail.com LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org
I still opt for Slackware simplicity and stability. Nothing better than a
well configured Slackware box with XFS file system and PostgreSQL! =)
C Ya,
Bruno
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ron Mayer
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:32 PM
To: Martijn van Oosterhout; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
When I had customers faced with this decision, we made the
recommendation based on which distro employs major contributors
of the software project in question.
For Postgresql's case, RedHat's employment of Tom made
our recommendation to use Red Hat.
Some of our clients are running .NET front ends, so we're
recommending Novel/SuSE for those.
It's a mix of superstition that the vendors platform is
may see earlier testing, along with rewarding the vendor
for supporting the project.
Ron
PS: All you open source vendors who employ important
developers -- Thank You - this contribution does not go unnoticed.
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever
> distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no
> point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain
> or tune :)
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:14:00AM -0300, Esteban Kemp wrote:
>
>>I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and
>>Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution
>>like:
>>
>>whitebox
>>RHEL
>>Fedora
>>Suse
>>
>>Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an
answer
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>
>> No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever
>> distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no
>> point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain
>> or tune :)
>>
> Actually there is a difference from PostgreSQL's point of view :)
> Namely in filesystems. The default filesystem on whitebox, RHEL and
> Fedora is EXT3 which really isn't that great.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is there any evidence of the above claim? I've seen a link to a l-k
bug report about ext3, but apparently it was totally unconfirmed
(and a single bug does not mean a FS is not good - I remember XFS
being hammered heavily before being accepted into Linux).
I'm using ext3 cause all other FSes are simple add-ons in linux.
All of them struggled a lot before being able to meet linux high
quality standards and being accepted into mainstream. Ext3 was there
from the start. Of course that doesn't mean it fits PostgreSQL needs
better than other FSes.
.TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
I think the filesystem you choose depends what you are looking for. Ext3 is by far the most tested and most stable out the file systems available. It is basically just ext2 with journalling stuck on top (and a few other niceities). XFS may well be faster but is perhaps not so well tested or as stable. My choise for stability would be ext3 and for speed would be xfs. As for the OS, it probably doesn't make much difference. My personal choice though is gentoo. My reasons are. 1. The postgres server is compiled with optimised gcc flags. 2. Gentoo have many different versions of postgres available and is easy to upgrade /change between versions. Looking at the versions available now they have from 7.3.6 to 8.0. (8.0 is still marked as testing) Regards, Abdul-Wahid On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:34:31 +0100 (CET), Marco Colombo <pgsql@esiway.net> wrote: > On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > > >> No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use whichever > >> distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no > >> point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to maintain > >> or tune :) > >> > > Actually there is a difference from PostgreSQL's point of view :) > > Namely in filesystems. The default filesystem on whitebox, RHEL and > > Fedora is EXT3 which really isn't that great. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Is there any evidence of the above claim? I've seen a link to a l-k > bug report about ext3, but apparently it was totally unconfirmed > (and a single bug does not mean a FS is not good - I remember XFS > being hammered heavily before being accepted into Linux). > > I'm using ext3 cause all other FSes are simple add-ons in linux. > All of them struggled a lot before being able to meet linux high > quality standards and being accepted into mainstream. Ext3 was there > from the start. Of course that doesn't mean it fits PostgreSQL needs > better than other FSes. > > .TM. > -- > ____/ ____/ / > / / / Marco Colombo > ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager > / / / ESI s.r.l. > _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match >
Alle 10:09, giovedì 20 gennaio 2005, Bruno Almeida do Lago ha scritto: > I still opt for Slackware simplicity and stability. Nothing better than a > well configured Slackware box with XFS file system and PostgreSQL! =) > > C Ya, > Bruno For a generic use of postgresql, binary packages in any linux distribution are good and reliable. In some cases, i.e. in a production context where you have to optimize your postgresql, the ability of configuring and compiling postgresql from sources is a must. This should make you use a more flexible distribution like slackware and gentoo with which you can prepare your linux box from scratch by compiling everything according to your needs (it isn't enough to have a binary linux distribituion installed and only postgresql compiled from sources). Ciao Vittorio
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I think you forget the origins of the XFS filesystem. XFS was originally created for SGI's IRIX operating system, and specifically designed for handling large files and filesystems at high speeds. It is very fast, and quite well tested: it was in heavy use on IRIX systems before ever having been made available for Linux. Check it out here: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/ On Jan 20, 2005, at 7:23 AM, Abdul-Wahid Paterson wrote: > I think the filesystem you choose depends what you are looking for. > Ext3 is by far the most tested and most stable out the file systems > available. It is basically just ext2 with journalling stuck on top > (and a few other niceities). XFS may well be faster but is perhaps not > so well tested or as stable. My choise for stability would be ext3 and > for speed would be xfs. > > As for the OS, it probably doesn't make much difference. My personal > choice though is gentoo. My reasons are. > > 1. The postgres server is compiled with optimised gcc flags. > 2. Gentoo have many different versions of postgres available and is > easy to upgrade /change between versions. Looking at the versions > available now they have from > 7.3.6 to 8.0. (8.0 is still marked as testing) > > Regards, > > Abdul-Wahid > > > > On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 11:34:31 +0100 (CET), Marco Colombo > <pgsql@esiway.net> wrote: >> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >>> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: >>> >>>> No difference whatsoever from PostgreSQL's point of view. Use >>>> whichever >>>> distribution is easiest for you to administer. After all, there's no >>>> point installing Postgres on a machine you don't know how to >>>> maintain >>>> or tune :) >>>> >>> Actually there is a difference from PostgreSQL's point of view :) >>> Namely in filesystems. The default filesystem on whitebox, RHEL and >>> Fedora is EXT3 which really isn't that great. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> >> Is there any evidence of the above claim? I've seen a link to a l-k >> bug report about ext3, but apparently it was totally unconfirmed >> (and a single bug does not mean a FS is not good - I remember XFS >> being hammered heavily before being accepted into Linux). >> >> I'm using ext3 cause all other FSes are simple add-ons in linux. >> All of them struggled a lot before being able to meet linux high >> quality standards and being accepted into mainstream. Ext3 was there >> from the start. Of course that doesn't mean it fits PostgreSQL needs >> better than other FSes. >> >> .TM. >> -- >> ____/ ____/ / >> / / / Marco Colombo >> ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager >> / / / ESI s.r.l. >> _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it >> >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if >> your >> joining column's datatypes do not match >> > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > - ----------------------------------------------------------- Frank D. Engel, Jr. <fde101@fjrhome.net> $ ln -s /usr/share/kjvbible /usr/manual $ true | cat /usr/manual | grep "John 3:16" John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. $ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFB77hE7aqtWrR9cZoRAqWDAJ90Ia0RaqdDydLBZ1qY87QlohuU4ACgkltP FoATmnsg3CxK5TLiVtdcSAk= =ck94 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ___________________________________________________________ $0 Web Hosting with up to 120MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Is there any evidence of the above claim? I've seen a link to a l-k > bug report about ext3, but apparently it was totally unconfirmed > (and a single bug does not mean a FS is not good - I remember XFS > being hammered heavily before being accepted into Linux). EXT3 works. It is just dog slow and yes there is plenty of evidence to EXT3s problems. Even from the author himself. Just review the kernel threads and mailing lists. Note that a lot of the problem have been fixed. > > I'm using ext3 cause all other FSes are simple add-ons in linux.All of > them struggled a lot before being able to meet linux high > quality standards and being accepted into mainstream. Ext3 was there > from the start. Of course that doesn't mean it fits PostgreSQL needs > better than other FSes. Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. XFS is also a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had nothing to do with quality. Just because something isn't in the main tree doesn't mean that the quality is lacking. A lot of times it is just politics. There is a reason that all major distributions supported XFS, Reiser and JFS before RedHat and it has nothing to do with quality. Sincerely, Joshua D Drake > > .TM. -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always > there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. I remember first using reiser3 by patching early 2.4 kernels. IIRC, reiser was not in linus tree until 2.4.7 or so (not sure which release) and it went in after a great debate/controversy. So I don't think reiser is available in 2.2. > XFS is also > a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had > nothing to do with quality. -- dave
Does it have to be linux? I've never had as much success with PostGresql on linux as i have on FreeBSD 5.3 matt Quoting David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com>: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always > > there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. > > I remember first using reiser3 by patching early 2.4 kernels. IIRC, > reiser was not in linus tree until 2.4.7 or so (not sure which release) > and it went in after a great debate/controversy. > > So I don't think reiser is available in 2.2. > > > XFS is also > > a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had > > nothing to do with quality. > > -- > dave > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
David Garamond wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always >> there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. > > > I remember first using reiser3 by patching early 2.4 kernels. IIRC, > reiser was not in linus tree until 2.4.7 or so (not sure which > release) and it went in after a great debate/controversy. > > So I don't think reiser is available in 2.2. O.k. did some research and it appears that Reiser may have been available as of 2.4.1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS Which was still along time ago :) and considering how borked the Linus tree was in 2.4 until about 2.4.18 which was 18 months after release... I think still matches my not always a technical reason comment in this thread ;) Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > >> XFS is also >> a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had >> nothing to do with quality. > > > -- > dave > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
mstory@uchicago.edu wrote: >Does it have to be linux? I've never had as much success with PostGresql on >linux as i have on FreeBSD 5.3 > > For XFS? I don't think you are going to have with FreeBSD and XFS. If IIRC (some freebsd person please chime in) that is one thing that Linux has over FreeBSD which is its filesystems support. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >matt > >Quoting David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com>: > > > >>Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> >> >>>Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always >>>there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. >>> >>> >>I remember first using reiser3 by patching early 2.4 kernels. IIRC, >>reiser was not in linus tree until 2.4.7 or so (not sure which release) >>and it went in after a great debate/controversy. >> >>So I don't think reiser is available in 2.2. >> >> >> >>>XFS is also >>>a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had >>>nothing to do with quality. >>> >>> >>-- >>dave >> >>---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >>TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >> >> >> > > > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
On Thursday 20 January 2005 09:20 pm, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > mstory@uchicago.edu wrote: > >Does it have to be linux? I've never had as much success with > > PostGresql on linux as i have on FreeBSD 5.3 > > For XFS? I don't think you are going to have with FreeBSD and XFS. > If IIRC (some freebsd person please chime in) that is one thing > that Linux has over FreeBSD which is its filesystems support. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake I don't think he was referring to the filesystem issue as much as the original question as to which Linux distribution would be best. I was running PostgreSQL on Linux until just before the 2.4 kernel was released. I tried it on FreeBSD because my uncompressed backup files were larger than 2GB. I've been running PostgreSQL on FreeBSD 4* ever since; and I could not be more pleased. Although the 2.4 kernel increased the maximum file size, I never looked back. (Actually, I have been looking back at Linux -- but only at the request of the IS Dept. They have a few staff that run Linux at home; but aren't comfortable with FreeBSD. At the point that they support Linux officially, they would like me to change operating systems.) Andrew Gould
On Friday 21 January 2005 07:40, Andrew L. Gould wrote: We are running a 200 user system off a SUN Fire v40z using SuSE Linux 9.2 for AMD64. On average we process a JSP page in 300 ms, country wide and have approximately 300 tables with over 3 000 000 records in the PostgresQL DB. I would recommend that you look at any Linux distro that supports 64 Bit architecture... ...32 bit machines just don't cope so well. :) Initially we running this off a Win 2000 server running MS-SQL but we could only support 20 concurrent connections... ...if we were lucky. I then converted the DB to PostgresQL and moved this to a Dual PIV running Linux and managed to push the concurrent connections up to 50. We now can support more then 300 concurrent connections and the server keeps smiling. The machine is a quad processor with 8GB of RAM which does not really compare with the PIV as it is in a league of its own, but if you look at the query response and page response on a case-by-case basis, you will see that the 64 bit architecture is normally 2 to 3 times faster then a 32 bit machine. Q -- Quinton Delpeche Internal Systems Developer Softline VIP Telephone: +27 12 420 7000 Direct: +27 12 420 7007 Facsimile: +27 12 420 7344 http://www.vippayroll.co.za/ Hier liegt ein Mann ganz obnegleich; Im Leibe dick, an Suden reich. Wir haben ihn in das Grab gesteckt, Here lies a man with sundry flaws Weil es uns dunkt er sei verreckt. And numerous Sins upon his head; We buried him today because As far as we can tell, he's dead. -- PDQ Bach's epitaph, as requested by his cousin Betty Sue Bach and written by the local doggerel catcher; "The Definitive Biography of PDQ Bach", Peter Schickele
Attachment
--On Saturday, January 08, 2005 11:14 AM -0300 Esteban Kemp <ekemp@inf.uach.cl> wrote: > > I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and Tomcat, > And I have to choose between some free linux distribution like: > > whitebox > RHEL > Fedora > Suse > > Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an > answer Have you considered something other than linux? Try FreeBSD. I think one of FreeBSD's active developers is also a PostgreSQL developer. (Fournier IIRC) FreeBSD is great software and it shares the BSD license with PostgreSQL. Later, Jason C. Wells
Esteban Kemp wrote: > I'm starting to develop a production enviroment with Postgres and > Tomcat, And I have to choose between some free linux distribution like: > > whitebox > RHEL > Fedora > Suse > > Which is the better distribution in terms of postgres? if this has an answer If you are looking for boxes to run PostgreSQL, you may want to add Ubuntu to your list. Ubuntu is free to use and supported, and commercial support available too. We use PostgreSQL internally, including on a monster box with 12GB of RAM, and have a vested interest in ensuring it works well. http://www.ubuntulinux.org If you need Java on the boxes running PostgreSQL, that will probably be the decisive factor - Java licencing makes it difficult for free distributions to provide easy installation and support. -- Stuart Bishop <stuart.bishop@canonical.com> http://www.canonical.com/ Canonical Ltd. http://www.ubuntulinux.com/
Any info about NetBSD? Bruno -----Original Message----- From: Matthew Story [mailto:matthewstory@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 3:16 PM To: Bruno Almeida do Lago Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution for the stability of BSD you should look into their development categories, it all depends on which release you're using, 4 right NOW is rock solid, 5.3 is also quite solid. Our performance has gone up 100% since we switched from suse to FreeBSD. regards, matt On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:28:43 -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago <teolupus@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd like to hear from you all experiences with PostgreSQL and FreeBSD! > > Which filesystem is used on FreeBSD? Is it journaling? > > What about the performance and stability??? > > I've heard a lot about FreeBSD, but never had the opportunity of testing it > intensively. > > > C ya, > Bruno > > -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of mstory@uchicago.edu > Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:47 AM > To: David Garamond > Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution > > Does it have to be linux? I've never had as much success with PostGresql on > linux as i have on FreeBSD 5.3 > > matt > > Quoting David Garamond <lists@zara.6.isreserved.com>: > > > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always > > > there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. > > > > I remember first using reiser3 by patching early 2.4 kernels. IIRC, > > reiser was not in linus tree until 2.4.7 or so (not sure which release) > > and it went in after a great debate/controversy. > > > > So I don't think reiser is available in 2.2. > > > > > XFS is also > > > a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had > > > nothing to do with quality. > > > > -- > > dave > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > >
On Friday 21 January 2005 11:23 am, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: > Any info about NetBSD? > > Bruno > Recent OS benchmarks (nothing specific to PostgreSQL) were compared to FreeBSD 5.3 and posted at: http://www.feyrer.de/NetBSD/gmcgarry/ I don't know enough to apply the information to the discussion at hand; but maybe you'll find it useful. My biggest beef with NetBSD is that there's so much you have to configure by hand in the base installation -- much more so than even FreeBSD because of the portability goals of NetBSD. On the other hand, (thanks to articles by Michael Lucas) my Nec MobilePro 780, a large pda with keyboard, now runs NetBSD 1.6.2; and has grown up to be a real computer! You have to take the good with the bad, I suppose. Andrew Gould
On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: > Any info about NetBSD? That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons.. Patrick
Patrick Welche wrote: > On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: > >>Any info about NetBSD? > > > That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons.. Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies.. -- Until later, Geoffrey
I'm very interested in testing FreeBSD + PostgreSQL! Is it truth that the
PostgreSQL project was born over BSD? Does the project still being developed
over it?
Atenciosamente,
Bruno Almeida do Lago
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:15 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>
>>Any info about NetBSD?
>
>
> That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
--
Until later, Geoffrey
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:
I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:
1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
enough to account for them.
2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
recompile, for instance.
3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
supported by NetBSD.
4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.
I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
with Linux. Linux is too easy.
I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
is too easy.
- Ian
>>> Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>
>>Any info about NetBSD?
>
>
> That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
--
Until later, Geoffrey
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install
is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and
OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments
---
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM
To: esoteric@3times25.net; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:
I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:
1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
enough to account for them.
2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
recompile, for instance.
3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
supported by NetBSD.
4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.
I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
with Linux. Linux is too easy.
I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
is too easy.
- Ian
>>> Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>
>>Any info about NetBSD?
>
>
> That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
--
Until later, Geoffrey
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: >I'm very interested in testing FreeBSD + PostgreSQL! Is it truth that the >PostgreSQL project was born over BSD? Does the project still being developed >over it? > > I know that a couple of the core developers use FreeBSD as their primary platform... However PostgreSQL is developed as a whole on many platforms. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >Atenciosamente, >Bruno Almeida do Lago > > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Geoffrey >Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:15 PM >To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org >Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution > >Patrick Welche wrote: > > >>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: >> >> >> >>>Any info about NetBSD? >>> >>> >>That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons.. >> >> > >Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies.. > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile on
FreeBSD (since both use GCC)?
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of
mmiranda@americatel.com.sv
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:59 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install
is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and
OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments
---
-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM
To: esoteric@3times25.net; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit:
I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that:
1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They
put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares
enough to account for them.
2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run
on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your
toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you
likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel
recompile, for instance.
3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and
greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example,
since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one
because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming
slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I
just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT
bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet)
supported by NetBSD.
4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent.
I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have
with Linux. Linux is too easy.
I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server
is too easy.
- Ian
>>> Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>>
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>
>>Any info about NetBSD?
>
>
> That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
--
Until later, Geoffrey
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: >Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile on >FreeBSD (since both use GCC)? > > In general yes. Sometimes they do require some tweaks though. J > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of >mmiranda@americatel.com.sv >Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:59 PM >To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org >Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution > >I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install >is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and >OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments > >--- > >-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding >Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM >To: esoteric@3times25.net; pgsql-general@postgresql.org >Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution > > >I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit: > >I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that: > >1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They >put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares >enough to account for them. > >2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run >on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your >toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you >likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel >recompile, for instance. > >3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and >greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example, >since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one >because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming >slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I >just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT >bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet) >supported by NetBSD. > >4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent. > >I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have >with Linux. Linux is too easy. > >I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server >is too easy. > >- Ian > > > >>>>Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>> >>>> >>>> >Patrick Welche wrote: > > >>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: >> >> >> >>>Any info about NetBSD? >>> >>> >>That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons.. >> >> > >Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies.. > > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Attachment
Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: >Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile on >FreeBSD (since both use GCC)? > > > FreeBSD even has support for Linux *binaries.* In general, yes, software developed on one should work on the other once you satisfy dependencies. Especially for something like PostgreSQL... There are a few caveats for other software but this becomes a bit off-topic. For example, some games won;t work because they require access to a framebuffer device which FreeBSD doesn't have. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of >mmiranda@americatel.com.sv >Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 4:59 PM >To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org >Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution > >I disagree on number 1, in fact , untar, cd, ./configure, make, make install >is all you have to do on BSD, not RPM nightmares, at least on Freebsd and >OpenBSD, not sure of NetBSD, I agreee on all others comments > >--- > >-----Original Message----- >From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org >[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org]On Behalf Of Ian Harding >Sent: Friday, January 21, 2005 12:42 PM >To: esoteric@3times25.net; pgsql-general@postgresql.org >Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution > > >I didn't see the post asking about NetBSD, but I can answer it a bit: > >I think NetBSD is like other BSD in that: > >1. untar, cd, ./configure, make, install doesn't usually work. They >put stuff in different places and not everyone in the Linux world cares >enough to account for them. > >2. Out of the box, NetBSD is not optimized for anything. It will run >on crummier hardware than you will likely have (and will run on your >toaster), but will not take full advantage of the great hardware you >likely have. Shared memory settings are too low and require a kernel >recompile, for instance. > >3. The latest and greatest hardware is not supported. The latest and >greatest software is not in the ports|pkgsrc collection. For example, >since TCL went to 8.4, the package maintainer for pltcl won't create one >because the working solution is not "clean" enough. The seeming >slowness to adopt new stuff makes NetBSD rock solid stable. However, I >just had to migrate my work system from NetBSD to Linux because IT >bought servers with new whiz-bang RAID controllers that are not (yet) >supported by NetBSD. > >4. It is beautifully clean, compact, secure and consistent. > >I learned a lot from my experience with NetBSD. More than I would have >with Linux. Linux is too easy. > >I am learning a lot from my experience with PostgreSQL. MS SQL Server >is too easy. > >- Ian > > > >>>>Geoffrey <esoteric@3times25.net> 01/21/05 10:15 AM >>> >>>> >>>> >Patrick Welche wrote: > > >>On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: >> >> >> >>>Any info about NetBSD? >>> >>> >>That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons.. >> >> > >Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies.. > > >
I don't think there are any Amish PostgreSQL users.
Geoffrey
<esoteric@3times25.net> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent by: cc:
pgsql-general-owner@pos Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution
tgresql.org
01/21/2005 01:15 PM
Patrick Welche wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote:
>
>>Any info about NetBSD?
>
>
> That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons..
Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies..
--
Until later, Geoffrey
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>> Can I expect that a software developed on Linux will run and compile >> on FreeBSD (since both use GCC)? >> > In general yes. Sometimes they do require some tweaks though. Specially if they rely heavily on threads (i.e mysql, freeradius, etc) I have some implementation issues with this (i.e. high cpu usage, slow performance), bye
I run Postgres on Gentoo and it works fine.
By the way, I have to tell that the best linux is Gentoo.
Mage
:oD On Friday 21 January 2005 03:46 pm, Richard_D_Levine@raytheon.com saith: > I don't think there are any Amish PostgreSQL users. > > > > Geoffrey > <esoteric@3times25.net> To: > pgsql-general@postgresql.org Sent by: cc: > pgsql-general-owner@pos Subject: Re: > [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution tgresql.org > > > 01/21/2005 01:15 PM > > Patrick Welche wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 03:23:47PM -0200, Bruno Almeida do Lago wrote: > >>Any info about NetBSD? > > > > That's all we use - no problems, so never had to do any comparisons.. > > Hmmm, with that attitude, we'd all still be riding horse and buggies.. > > -- > Until later, Geoffrey > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend -- Work: 1-336-372-6812 Cell: 1-336-363-4719 email: terry@esc1.com
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Is there any evidence of the above claim? I've seen a link to a l-k >> bug report about ext3, but apparently it was totally unconfirmed >> (and a single bug does not mean a FS is not good - I remember XFS >> being hammered heavily before being accepted into Linux). > > EXT3 works. It is just dog slow and yes there is plenty of evidence > to EXT3s problems. Even from the author himself. Just review the kernel > threads and mailing lists. Note that a lot of the problem have been fixed. It's just that EXT3 bugs are exposed, and discussed in the wild. Again, please provide this "evidence", expecially for the "dog slow" part. As for problems, I don't count bugs, expecially already fixed ones, as problems. A "problem" to me is something you can't correct and have to live with it. As a design flaw. EXT3 for sure has a huge user base, compared to XFS, so counting the number of bug reports on linux-kernel is meaningless, since XFS is a _recent_ addition to the mainstream kernel. >> I'm using ext3 cause all other FSes are simple add-ons in linux.All of them >> struggled a lot before being able to meet linux high >> quality standards and being accepted into mainstream. Ext3 was there >> from the start. Of course that doesn't mean it fits PostgreSQL needs >> better than other FSes. > > Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was always > there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. XFS is also > a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main tree had > nothing to do with quality. > > Just because something isn't in the main tree doesn't mean that the quality > is lacking. A lot of times it is just politics. Interesting point of view. When it comes to filesystems, I tend to trust Al Viro's (linux VFS and generic filesystems mantainer) opinion. http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/2/150 "bloated", "[locking] it's a fscking mess", "long past the point where maintainers had lost any control over it". I see no politics in that. Just plain technical concerns about code quality. That was only one year ago. Anyway, XFS got merged, so I guess now it's up to tolerable quality, I hope. But still I don't like this: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls It seems it journals only metadata. You need _all_ processes in your system to use fsync or the O_SYNC flag. Otherwise you're going to _loose data_. There's no mount option about that. Compare EXT3 mount options: data=journal, data=ordered, data=writeback. It seems XFS only supports something similar to data=writeback. EXT3 default mode is data=ordered: "All data is forced directly out to the main file system prior to its metadata being committed to the journal." No wonder EXT3 (in default mode) may result slower than XFS, it's comparing oranges with apples. PostgreSQL users might not be affected, if they run with fsync on. If the application forces sync operations, I doubt there's any measurable difference between the two filesystems. The storage will be the bottleneck. > There is a reason that all major distributions supported XFS, Reiser and JFS > before RedHat and it has nothing to do with quality. Yes, user demand. Many distros support broken drivers, unstables patches, and lots of stuff that doesn't make it for the vanilla kernel, due to quality concerns. So you're right. It has nothing to do with quality... EXT3 and XFS have quite different feature sets, and I think both are a valid choice for PostgreSQL systems. Choose depending on your needs. But, please stop spreading FUD about EXT3, unless you provide direct links to "evidence". Generic "search the lists" isn't enough, I could say the same about XFS, and any other FS, of course. No software is born perfect. .TM. -- ____/ ____/ / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
Let me chime in here for a moment. My objective is not to bash any filesystem technology. I have been using XFS consistently now for a couple of years on all my Linux boxes. It works great. I love the spead and performance. A number of years ago when it was first being ported to Linux I tried it out and I will say it had a number of problems (occasionally lose data and files) but they seemed to have been fixed. I am using XFS on a production (Fedora Core 3) PostgreSQL 7.4.6 box without any problems. That is all I have to say on the matter. Juan -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Marco Colombo Sent: Friday, February 04, 2005 12:30 PM To: Joshua D. Drake Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Best Linux Distribution On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> Is there any evidence of the above claim? I've seen a link to a l-k >> bug report about ext3, but apparently it was totally unconfirmed (and >> a single bug does not mean a FS is not good - I remember XFS being >> hammered heavily before being accepted into Linux). > > EXT3 works. It is just dog slow and yes there is plenty of evidence to > EXT3s problems. Even from the author himself. Just review the kernel > threads and mailing lists. Note that a lot of the problem have been fixed. It's just that EXT3 bugs are exposed, and discussed in the wild. Again, please provide this "evidence", expecially for the "dog slow" part. As for problems, I don't count bugs, expecially already fixed ones, as problems. A "problem" to me is something you can't correct and have to live with it. As a design flaw. EXT3 for sure has a huge user base, compared to XFS, so counting the number of bug reports on linux-kernel is meaningless, since XFS is a _recent_ addition to the mainstream kernel. >> I'm using ext3 cause all other FSes are simple add-ons in linux.All >> of them struggled a lot before being able to meet linux high quality >> standards and being accepted into mainstream. Ext3 was there from the >> start. Of course that doesn't mean it fits PostgreSQL needs better >> than other FSes. > > Well that isnt exactly true. EXT3 is a bolt on to EXT2 which was > always there. Reiser is also a long time kernel at least from 2.2. XFS > is also a long time Linux supporter and its inclusion into the main > tree had nothing to do with quality. > > Just because something isn't in the main tree doesn't mean that the > quality is lacking. A lot of times it is just politics. Interesting point of view. When it comes to filesystems, I tend to trust Al Viro's (linux VFS and generic filesystems mantainer) opinion. http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/2/150 "bloated", "[locking] it's a fscking mess", "long past the point where maintainers had lost any control over it". I see no politics in that. Just plain technical concerns about code quality. That was only one year ago. Anyway, XFS got merged, so I guess now it's up to tolerable quality, I hope. But still I don't like this: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/faq.html#nulls It seems it journals only metadata. You need _all_ processes in your system to use fsync or the O_SYNC flag. Otherwise you're going to _loose data_. There's no mount option about that. Compare EXT3 mount options: data=journal, data=ordered, data=writeback. It seems XFS only supports something similar to data=writeback. EXT3 default mode is data=ordered: "All data is forced directly out to the main file system prior to its metadata being committed to the journal." No wonder EXT3 (in default mode) may result slower than XFS, it's comparing oranges with apples. PostgreSQL users might not be affected, if they run with fsync on. If the application forces sync operations, I doubt there's any measurable difference between the two filesystems. The storage will be the bottleneck. > There is a reason that all major distributions supported XFS, Reiser > and JFS before RedHat and it has nothing to do with quality. Yes, user demand. Many distros support broken drivers, unstables patches, and lots of stuff that doesn't make it for the vanilla kernel, due to quality concerns. So you're right. It has nothing to do with quality... EXT3 and XFS have quite different feature sets, and I think both are a valid choice for PostgreSQL systems. Choose depending on your needs. But, please stop spreading FUD about EXT3, unless you provide direct links to "evidence". Generic "search the lists" isn't enough, I could say the same about XFS, and any other FS, of course. No software is born perfect. .TM. -- ____/ ____/ / / / / Marco Colombo ___/ ___ / / Technical Manager / / / ESI s.r.l. _____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq