Thread: Linux distro
Hello, I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? Thanks in advance, Paolo Saudin
paolo@ecometer.it wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution > ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? > There is no "right" answer to this. For a Postgres server though I would probably not go for Fedora or Ubuntu as they are more desktop oriented and have frequent updates and relatively short life cycles. If I were to recommend anything I would suggest CentOS - or even RHEL if you need enterprise level support/certification. Eddy
On 01.08.2007 13:29, paolo@ecometer.it wrote: > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution > ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? You need to learn general Linux/Unix administration first, what distribution is not so important in the first step. If you have some basic knowledge chose the distribution that fits your needs best. I'm sure Google or Wikipedia will come up with a comparative list with pros and cons of each. As you say it it's a server, I assume you'll have it in a production environment. It's never a good idea to have anything in production with an OS you are not familiar with. -- Regards, Hannes Dorbath
Paolo, I started with linux 6 years ago after being a confirmed microsoftie my entire career, this is the experience I can offer: Ubuntu: What Windows wants to be, what the Mac is w/o the $$$$ and with more control. I just replaced a hard drive in a dell machine. A generic windows CD (the customer did not have the specific recovery CD for that box) could not install drivers for the network, the video, or the sound. Ubuntu did all of them. Ubuntu however is a desktop OS. Great graphics, great package management. However, it is still Linux and you still have to do some Googling here and there to find a HOWTO. Perhaps the most annoying problem is lack of support for widescreen monitors, you have to type tech data into an X config to get that working. Also, IMHO stay away from 7.04, I've tried it on two machines and had troubles on both, to the extent of wiping one and starting over at 6.10. Stay with 6.10. Suse: going for the same space as Ubuntu. I tried it first, 6 years ago. It was ok at the time but can't tell you about the modern stuff. I don't trust Novell to get it right though, just a personal feeling. Fedora I don't use but as I understand there is a large body of people with a lot of cultural knowledge about how it works. So when you go Fedora you join the club as it were and do things their way. I tried Red Hat back when it was Red Hat some 9 years ago and again 6 years ago and I always found myself stuck on some detail that I could not find an answer to. Now if you want a hardcore distro to learn everything about linux, go with gentoo. There are no binary packages (at least not that I use or can easily find), but you end up knowing *everything* about how Linux works. Very active community. I used this as a desktop for 3 years as a sort of long-term boot camp. It did make me very comfortable with all things linux. Conclusion: I use gentoo on my servers and Ubuntu on my desktops. Except for the virus ^H^H^H^^H gaming machine that I have for the kids running XP. paolo@ecometer.it wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution > ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? > > Thanks in advance, > Paolo Saudin > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match > -- Kenneth Downs Secure Data Software, Inc. www.secdat.com www.andromeda-project.org 631-689-7200 Fax: 631-689-0527 cell: 631-379-0010
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 13:29 +0200, paolo@ecometer.it wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution > ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? > > Thanks in advance, > Paolo Saudin > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match Is this going to be a production server. or a learning server, or a i'm learning all things linux server/desktop? If it's a dedicated production server, look at UBUNTU 6.10 server. If you're planning to connect a monitor and run X-windows ( i.e. I bought a server, but i'm going to use it as a learning platform for LINUX in general also), i'd suggest either UBUNTU 6.10 or 7.04 desktop ( or, start with the 6.10 server, and use apt/synaptic/etc to add whatever additional packages you want )
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, paolo@ecometer.it wrote: > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which > distribution ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? If this is a server you intend to keep around a while, the most straighforward way to proceed is to install either RedHat Enterprise Linux 5 (if you can justify paying for the software and want official support) or its free but not officially supported clone CentOS (which lags the real RedHat a bit but is otherwise fine for many people). It's straightforward to remove the PostgreSQL that comes with the operating system and install the 8.2.4 binary builds from http://www.postgresql.org/ftp/binary/v8.2.4/linux/rpms/redhat/ , and enough of us here do that regularly that if should you run into a problem it will be easy to get help. That's really the main strength of using RedHat--the problems you do run into, typically lots of other people know about as well. One thing to be aware of going in is that the default disk partitioning scheme may not be right for you, which can bite you down the road; make sure you consider that carefully before installation. I always customize the partition layout myself. The related Fedora distribution isn't aimed at server use in the long term. I consider it quirkier and less reliable than the real RedHat releases, which are also bad qualities for a server, and only recommend Fedora for general tinkering with Linux. SuSE used to be a reasonable alternative instead for server applications, but the recent backlash from their dealings with Microsoft have made their future too uncertain for me to recommend any new installations use their distribution. Ubuntu might be a reasonable alternative for you, especially if you have a lot of software besides PostgreSQL that you want to install on the machine. The ease of adding new software to Ubuntu is much better than most other distributions, particularly when it comes to applications that are more desktop oriented. The downside is that getting the latest PostgreSQL on there using the standard packages takes some work, and the way the database server is managed is a little different from other distributions which adds a layer of things you'll need to learn. Gentoo can be a good server environment, but the learning curve to get started is probably harder than you want to take on if you're new to Linux. -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
paolo@ecometer.it wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution > ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? > > Thanks in advance, > Paolo Saudin First, let me echo Hannes; You do not want to go into production with a network operating system you are not familiar with! Doing so is just begging for down time. Unless this is a server you will have time to learn on and/or you have someone with a Linux background to help you, stick with MS for now. With that caveat out of the way, Linux as a server is amazing! I, too, was a MS-kids from way back (DOS5.2). I switched about five years ago to Linux (RH5.2, coincidently) and honestly have never looked back. It's my servers OS, my desktop OS and my laptop OS. It is very much worth the learning curve from a sysadmin and stability point of view. You just need to give yourself time to feel it out. As for which distro; that's a question you are likely to never get the same answer twice. :) /Personally/, I love Debian on servers. It's not quite as 'hardcore' as Gentoo (a great distro, but not one to start with!). It's the foundation of many of the popular distros (Ubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix, etc) and the Debian crew is very careful about what they put into the 'stable' repositories. I had been a Redhat/FC fan from when I first switched to Linux until v7.3 (the best version Redhat ever put out, in my opinion). After v8 though, things went south... Too many "Redhatisms" in the Redhat derivative distros (Fedora Core, RHEL, CentOS, etc) reminded me of the reasons why I left Windows. On desktops though I am a big fan of Ubuntu. Oddly though, I found the 6.x series less than great, and have found 7.04 to be *way* better. I run it on my desktops and my laptop. I also had the problem with my main desktop's widescreen, but that seems to be a Linux-wide issue. The fix is easy if you know how to edit '/etc/X11/xorg.conf' (in my case, change the '1440x1440' entries to '1440x900' and restart 'gdm'), but that would be troublesome for people new to Linux. Ubuntu is a great desktop... My boyfriend's 83yo grandma uses it with no problems. I've moved several people over to the recent Ubuntu versions and have yet to have any ask to go back to Windows. They've all had nothing but compliments for it. It's just not a great server OS, as Kenneth explained. IANAL, YMMV, etc... :) Madison
I'm about to install a new Linux server, and I've followed this thread with interest, being a tinkerer rather than any sort of expert. I'm going to try out Debian, which I haven't used before - the server it's replacing is running an old RedHat - and would be interested in people's comments. This machine will be running PostgreSQL and nothing else, and I'll probably compile Postgres from source. Ray. --------------------------------------------------------------- Raymond O'Donnell, Director of Music, Galway Cathedral, Ireland rod@iol.ie ---------------------------------------------------------------
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] Per conto di Reid Thompson Inviato: mercoledì 1 agosto 2007 15.15 A: paolo@ecometer.it Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Oggetto: Re: [GENERAL] Linux distro On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 13:29 +0200, paolo@ecometer.it wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing > PostgrSQL 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to > install a Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on > which distribution ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? > > Thanks in advance, > Paolo Saudin > > > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match >Is this going to be a production server. or a learning server, or a i'm >learning all things linux server/desktop? This is going to be a test server holding meteorological data (100 tables with 1-2 millions rows each) that will serve as a kind of replica/backup for others databases (pull data from an FTP server via perl scripts). No matter for data loss since all the other databases are backed-up on a daily basis. >If it's a dedicated production server, look at UBUNTU 6.10 server. >If you're planning to connect a monitor and run X-windows ( i.e. I >bought a server, but i'm going to use it as a learning platform for >LINUX in general also), i'd suggest either UBUNTU 6.10 or 7.04 desktop >( or, start with the 6.10 server, and use apt/synaptic/etc to add >whatever additional packages you want ) >---------------------------(end of >broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to > choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not > match
On 8/1/07, paolo@ecometer.it <paolo@ecometer.it> wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution > ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? > > Thanks in advance, > Paolo Saudin Be careful when rolling something out you are not familiar with. You really shouldn't go into production with an OS you don't know. As for Linux, using an *Enterprise OS* is the ONLY type of OS you should use. Others may say that they "never had any problems" with non-enterprise OS versions, but they have missed the point. An enterprise OS is something that is tried-and-true, has long term support, and has been proven to be stable and working. That basically leaves RedHat Enterprise (and it's clones) and some versions of SuSE. Ubuntu claims to have a "long term support" version, but it hasn't been around long enough to be proven. My recommendation is to go with CentOS, which is the best clone of Redhat enterprise (redhat even works with them behind the scenes). They release updates within 1-7 days of when an update comes out from redhat, and it has been around a long time; tried and true. Another important point to make is that if you plan on having more servers in the future, you really want to have the same OS on everything. It's not a good idea to try one OS here, then try another OS there. That's fine for your desktop or for doing research, but is an unsuitable strategy when deploying things in production. Ubuntu, fedora, and many of the others are "desktop" linuxes, and are not suitable for use on a server.
On Wednesday 1. August 2007 16:15, Madison Kelly wrote: >/Personally/, I love Debian on servers. > >It's not quite as 'hardcore' as Gentoo (a great distro, but not one to >start with!). It's the foundation of many of the popular distros >(Ubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix, etc) and the Debian crew is very careful > about what they put into the 'stable' repositories. I agree totally. Debian in a server configuration is quite easy to get started with, and is rock solid. My first Linux "test server" (my old Pentium 133 MHz desktop) way back in 2002 ran Debian Woody. I kept it running until it died from old age a couple of years ago. Later I fell in love with Gentoo. But if I'd have to run a server with maximum stability and uptime, I think that I'd still prefer Debian. -- Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009 http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/
Raymond O'Donnell wrote:
> I'm about to install a new Linux server, and I've followed this thread
> with interest, being a tinkerer rather than any sort of expert.
>
> I'm going to try out Debian, which I haven't used before - the server
> it's replacing is running an old RedHat - and would be interested in
> people's comments.
>
> This machine will be running PostgreSQL and nothing else, and I'll
> probably compile Postgres from source.
>
> Ray.
Hi Ray,
Good luck with this endeavor. I would urge you to consider using the debian-packaged version of PostgreSQL unless
youhave a
good reason not to. I would include the following as legitimate reasons to want to build from source:
1. You're interested in learning about stuff and the machine isn't slated to be "in production"
2. You need features from a newer version than is available in Debian.
3. You need to build in functionality that is not available in the standard Debian package.
If you do build from source it's often possible to use the debian tools (dpkg-buildpackage) to assist you in making
yourown .deb
files (which may make long-term maintenance of the server/software easier than if you choose to take a generic
PostgreSQL tarball
and do ./configure; make; make install).
be well,
~c
At 4:52 PM +0200 8/1/07, Leif B. Kristensen wrote: >On Wednesday 1. August 2007 16:15, Madison Kelly wrote: > >>/Personally/, I love Debian on servers. >> >>It's not quite as 'hardcore' as Gentoo (a great distro, but not one to >>start with!). It's the foundation of many of the popular distros >>(Ubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix, etc) and the Debian crew is very careful >> about what they put into the 'stable' repositories. > >I agree totally. Debian in a server configuration is quite easy to get >started with, and is rock solid. My first Linux "test server" (my old >Pentium 133 MHz desktop) way back in 2002 ran Debian Woody. I kept it >running until it died from old age a couple of years ago. Later I fell >in love with Gentoo. But if I'd have to run a server with maximum >stability and uptime, I think that I'd still prefer Debian. As an alternative viewpoint, I've been running the latest postgres on Mac OS X Server 10.4, and it's been great for me. It was my first time using a server, and my first serious use of postgres (although I have had a lot of previous unix experience.) All the power of unix, all the ease of the Macintosh (and it's server installation gives you lots of great things for free and already installed - granted most is publicly available, but it's already installed and ready for use that's the big advantage). Not only that, but I can run windoze in Parallels (or even Boot Camp if I desired). -Owen
I just moved one of my desktops and my laptop from Fedora 6 to Unbuntu 7.04 because Fedora lacked hardware support that Unbuntu and my Fedora machines had all sorts of problems like sound dropping out and machines locking up. (Also the Fedora installers are terrible). My small gripes about Ubuntu are: 1) rpm, for all its faults, is still better than using apt 2) It doesn't include xen support like Fedora does 3) Support. The redhat bugzilla is much better than the Ubuntu bug tracker and the Ubuntu docs are just a very sparse Wiki. But my big gripe is that it won't let me run 32 bit apps on my 64 bit system, which means a lot of firefox plugins don't work. If I had realized this I would have just installed the 32 bit version to begin with. I don't see why this is such a big problem for Ubuntu
charlie derr napisal 2007-08-01 17:37: > I would include the following as legitimate reasons to want to > build from source: > > > 2. You need features from a newer version than is available in Debian. Martin Pitt - Debian's PostgreSQL package maintainer makes a great job. You won't wait too long for newest versions - even beta and rc. Regards, Tomasz Myrta
Joseph S <jks@selectacast.net> writes: > My small gripes about Ubuntu are: > 1) rpm, for all its faults, is still better than using apt You *must* be joking. In Debian and Ubuntu, I've never had a tenth of the dependency hell that you regularly hit with RPMs (though yum has improved things somewhat). Besides 'apt' and 'rpm' aren't directly comparable--'apt' is a wrapper around 'dpkg', which is the direct equivalent of 'rpm'. -Doug
On 8/1/07, Douglas McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org> wrote: > Joseph S <jks@selectacast.net> writes: > > > My small gripes about Ubuntu are: > > 1) rpm, for all its faults, is still better than using apt > > You *must* be joking. In Debian and Ubuntu, I've never had a tenth of > the dependency hell that you regularly hit with RPMs (though yum has > improved things somewhat). Besides 'apt' and 'rpm' aren't directly > comparable--'apt' is a wrapper around 'dpkg', which is the direct > equivalent of 'rpm'. > > -Doug > Please don't start this. These issues are exactly why one should be looking at an ENTERPRISE OS for a server. Fedora, ubuntu, etc... are not enterprise OSes, and any discussion of such issues are certainly off-topic for this mailing list. An enterprise OS has all of the dependency issues ironed out already. Incidentally, I really think that all of the "apt lovers" out there jumped to Debian in the days before tools like yum existed, and have not been paying attention to the changes made since. You are correct that yum handles most of the dependency issues, and it is certainly on par with apt in any modern system.
Joseph S wrote: > I just moved one of my desktops and my laptop from Fedora 6 to Unbuntu > 7.04 because Fedora lacked hardware support that Unbuntu and my Fedora > machines had all sorts of problems like sound dropping out and machines > locking up. (Also the Fedora installers are terrible). > > My small gripes about Ubuntu are: > 1) rpm, for all its faults, is still better than using apt Heh, see, this is what I meant by "you won't get the same answer twice". :) Personally, one of the big selling features of Debian (and Ubuntu) was how much better /I/ found 'apt-get'/'aptitude'/'synaptic' over 'up2date'/'yum'. You may want to download all the popularly recommended distributions and play around with them to see which suits your fancy. The major distributions I would suggest (in no particular order) you play with: - RHEL (if you can afford it) - CentOS - Debian Ubuntu is not really appropriate as a server, ditto with FC. Their focus is too much on the desktop (not bad, just not appropriate here). SuSe is in the dog house with the OSS community right now and that could translate into serious support troubles down the road (when did you last see anyone use Caldera? :) ). I somewhat agree with Brian's argument of using enterprise-grade distros, however I think that his particular argument is a little strict. If you have a healthy budget, then definitely go with a backed-distro. However if, like many of us, you want very good reliability without a (heafty if any) price tag, versions like CentOS and my fav. Debian are mature, tried and tested. I would never have any qualms recommending some distros as servers that don't have direct "commercial" suppliers. It's like PostgreSQL vs MySQL... The formal has a very strong community that makes it viable, where MySQL has the added benefit of direct paid support, should you want it. (Ignoring technical differences, please). Play around and choose what you like. Madi
"Brian Mathis" <brian.mathis@gmail.com> writes: > Please don't start this. These issues are exactly why one should be > looking at an ENTERPRISE OS for a server. Fedora, ubuntu, etc... are > not enterprise OSes, and any discussion of such issues are certainly > off-topic for this mailing list. An enterprise OS has all of the > dependency issues ironed out already. Like Debian? BTW, HP has provided enterprise Debian support for a while now. I think Ubuntu will be there soon, but as you say the track record isn't there yet. > Incidentally, I really think that all of the "apt lovers" out there > jumped to Debian in the days before tools like yum existed, and have > not been paying attention to the changes made since. You are correct > that yum handles most of the dependency issues, and it is certainly on > par with apt in any modern system. Mostly agree; I was just staggered that anyone could consider bare RPM (and the OP didn't mention yum or apt/rpm) as superior to apt on Debian/Ubuntu. -Doug
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Joseph S wrote: > My small gripes about Ubuntu are: > 1) rpm, for all its faults, is still better than using apt This is drfiting off-topic for this list, but this statement is so odd I can't let it go unchallenged. You must have some odd criteria for "better" or run into something quite unusual, because it's rare one finds people suggesting a preference for rpm over apt. I've spent countless hours of my life stuggling with rpm over the last decade, and it's only recently using it has become a more bearable situation due to better dependency tools such as yum. apt is rarely hard to deal with. I'm sure you've got a story as to how you decided rpm is better than apt, but I wouldn't agree and I think you'll find it a difficult opinion to defend. > 2) It doesn't include xen support like Fedora does Ubuntu has had Xen packages available since the 6.10 release: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/XenVirtualMachine > But my big gripe is that it won't let me run 32 bit apps on my 64 bit > system, which means a lot of firefox plugins don't work. 32-bit apps not building/running correctly on a 64 bit installation is not a problem limited to Ubuntu; it's an equally messy problem on all Linux distributions, and the workarounds for each are similar. On the topic of Firefox plug-ins: Fedora/RHEL: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/linux-flash-java-realplayer-under-64bit-firefox.html Ubuntu: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1174435 -- * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
On 8/2/07, Reid Thompson <Reid.Thompson@ateb.com> wrote: > If it's a dedicated production server, look at UBUNTU 6.10 server. > If you're planning to connect a monitor and run X-windows ( i.e. I > bought a server, but i'm going to use it as a learning platform for > LINUX in general also), i'd suggest either UBUNTU 6.10 or 7.04 desktop > ( or, start with the 6.10 server, and use apt/synaptic/etc to add > whatever additional packages you want ) No offense, but *if* you have to suggest Ubuntu you should be suggesting 6.06 LTS, not any of the bleating, errrh, bleeding edge and quickly fluctuating versions. In a production server environment people commonly aren't eager to update the whole OS every year. I certainly wouldn't. And if you settle for a stable server environment, I, too, would rather go with the original debian than with ubuntu. Not that I particularly like either of them :} Cheers, Andrej
On 8/2/07, Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com> wrote: > Andrej, Richard, > How quickly people forget about the quiet distribution: Slackware. Ideal > for servers, and great on desktops and portables, too, for those who know > what they're doing. Slackware is my preferred distro by a long stretch, I've been a happy Slacker for over 6 years now; but to someone who's new to Linux as such, and wanting to get a production system up and running quickly, I wouldn't recommend it. A few months of solid experience would be the minimum, I'd say. > Rich Cheers, Andrej
On 8/1/07, Madison Kelly <linux@alteeve.com> wrote: > Joseph S wrote: > > I just moved one of my desktops and my laptop from Fedora 6 to Unbuntu > > 7.04 because Fedora lacked hardware support that Unbuntu and my Fedora > > machines had all sorts of problems like sound dropping out and machines > > locking up. (Also the Fedora installers are terrible). > > > > My small gripes about Ubuntu are: > > 1) rpm, for all its faults, is still better than using apt > > Heh, see, this is what I meant by "you won't get the same answer twice". > :) Personally, one of the big selling features of Debian (and Ubuntu) > was how much better /I/ found 'apt-get'/'aptitude'/'synaptic' over > 'up2date'/'yum'. > > You may want to download all the popularly recommended distributions and > play around with them to see which suits your fancy. > > The major distributions I would suggest (in no particular order) you > play with: > - RHEL (if you can afford it) > - CentOS > - Debian Seconded. I would tend to choose a distro based on who I know that I trust to help me out. If you've got a good friend who is an RHCE, it might be a good idea to go with RHEL/Centos. And so on. Let me add. If you're going to be using this server in production, it's just as important to stress / load test it before sending it out to do the job to make sure it can, in fact, do the job. memtest86 is a must, as is running some kind of heavy load test for a few days or weeks if you can afford the time. Get a good reliable RAID card, pref with battery backed cache. And the point of this little side line is that whatever you choose for hardware may well constrain what distro to use, as you'll need to make sure the drivers that come with the distros works well with your hardware.
On 06:30 Thu 02 Aug , Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote: > On 8/2/07, Rich Shepard <rshepard@appl-ecosys.com> wrote: > > Andrej, > Richard, > > > > How quickly people forget about the quiet distribution: Slackware. Ideal > > for servers, and great on desktops and portables, too, for those who know > > what they're doing. > Slackware is my preferred distro by a long stretch, I've > been a happy Slacker for over 6 years now; but to someone > who's new to Linux as such, and wanting to get a production > system up and running quickly, I wouldn't recommend it. A > few months of solid experience would be the minimum, I'd say. > I love Slackware but have eventually gone back to running my servers on Debian stable. Most of the Debian derivatives base on unstable to get the latest version of things but stable is rock solid and will never let you down. The advantage of Debian over Slackware is the ease of installation of new packages and updating the latest security patches. BTW stable versions are only released when they are bug free (as far as anything can be) on ALL architectures supported by Debian, which is I believe, something like 14 different architectures. The 'untus et al support one architecture or perhaps two. Just to clarify, unstable does not mean it crashes all the time, although it can if you blindly upgrade everything every day, it just means that things change frequently. In stable things hardly ever change and if they do you can be 99.9% sure they will work afterwards. Regards, John -- War is God's way of teaching Americans geography Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914)
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 13:29 +0200, paolo@ecometer.it wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL >> 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a >> Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution >> ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? >> >> Thanks in advance, >> Paolo Saudin >> My 02c, I'm pretty promiscuous when it comes to distros, as I want to run applications, not fuss with an OS, so which ever distro works best for me gets used. I've recently played with Ubuntu, Mandriva, Debian, OpenSUSE, SLED, Fedora Core, SImply Mepis & a few others (including running Postgres/PostGIS on them all) I don't think it really matters for Postgresql, most distros will run it fine. If you want a genuine basic server setup, maybe without any GUI, then avoid distros which focus more specifically on desktop ease of use. Perhaps look as BSD? If you want a workstation system, where there needs to be a good mix of desktop & server capabilities, a more generic system is preferable. If you want to set up essentially a desktop system, but run Postgresql on it, then any popular desktop distro will work. While Ubuntu & Mandriva (for example) focus on ease of use, they also have less commonly used server versions. OpenSUSE is the distro I currently prefer, it seems to do all I want better than the others I've tried recently. All the server stuff with a good set of desktop apps. I suggest you look at www.distrowatch.com to see their comments (but remember everyone has different likes & dislikes, so treat any review with caution, as your opinion may vary) HTH, Brent Wood
On 8/2/07, John K Masters <johnmasters@oxtedonline.net> wrote: > I love Slackware but have eventually gone back to running my servers on > Debian stable. Most of the Debian derivatives base on unstable to get > the latest version of things but stable is rock solid and will never let > you down. The advantage of Debian over Slackware is the ease of > installation of new packages and updating the latest security patches. I'll have to disagree :} on the "new packages" part. While apt-get'ing security fixes may be easier than manually ftp'ing after having received the security alert ( I don't mind the mildly more involved approach), I have to say that I find trying to install packages that the maintainers didn't find necessary to update (and no, just because I want a newer version of postgres I don't necessarily want to dist-upgrade) I much prefer Slackware *because* it doesn't have any dependency checks. > Regards, John Cheers, Andrej
On 09:15 Thu 02 Aug , Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote: > On 8/2/07, John K Masters <johnmasters@oxtedonline.net> wrote: > > > I love Slackware but have eventually gone back to running my servers on > > Debian stable. Most of the Debian derivatives base on unstable to get > > the latest version of things but stable is rock solid and will never let > > you down. The advantage of Debian over Slackware is the ease of > > installation of new packages and updating the latest security patches. > I'll have to disagree :} on the "new packages" part. While > apt-get'ing security fixes may be easier than manually ftp'ing > after having received the security alert ( I don't mind the mildly > more involved approach), I have to say that I find trying to > install packages that the maintainers didn't find necessary to > update (and no, just because I want a newer version of postgres > I don't necessarily want to dist-upgrade) I much prefer Slackware > *because* it doesn't have any dependency checks. > I must admit I am torn between Slack and Deb but being lazy I have gone for Debian. I ran Slackware 10 on my laptop for ages but eventually the hassle of keeping track of all the installed apps led me to change. This is probably due to my nature being such that I automatically install any package that looks the remotest bit interesting. Debian makes it extremely easy to undo mistakes. To get back to the original point, for a production server running postgres/linux I would definately recommend Debian and if it is not mission-critical, debian-testing and if you are feeling adventurous, Debian-unstable AKA sid. Regards, John -- War is God's way of teaching Americans geography Ambrose Bierce (1842 - 1914)
Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote: > On 8/2/07, Reid Thompson <Reid.Thompson@ateb.com> wrote: > > >> If it's a dedicated production server, look at UBUNTU 6.10 server. >> If you're planning to connect a monitor and run X-windows ( i.e. I >> bought a server, but i'm going to use it as a learning platform for >> LINUX in general also), i'd suggest either UBUNTU 6.10 or 7.04 desktop >> ( or, start with the 6.10 server, and use apt/synaptic/etc to add >> whatever additional packages you want ) >> > No offense, but *if* you have to suggest Ubuntu you should be > suggesting 6.06 LTS, oops, pulled the distro number from memory, 6.06 LTS for server is the one I meant rather than 6.10 > not any of the bleating, errrh, bleeding edge > and quickly fluctuating versions. In a production server environment > people commonly aren't eager to update the whole OS every year. I > certainly wouldn't. > > And if you settle for a stable server environment, I, too, would > rather go with the original debian than with ubuntu. Not that > I particularly like either of them :} > > > > Cheers, > Andrej > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster >
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/01/07 10:37, Owen Hartnett wrote: > At 4:52 PM +0200 8/1/07, Leif B. Kristensen wrote: >> On Wednesday 1. August 2007 16:15, Madison Kelly wrote: >> >>> /Personally/, I love Debian on servers. >>> >>> It's not quite as 'hardcore' as Gentoo (a great distro, but not one to >>> start with!). It's the foundation of many of the popular distros >>> (Ubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix, etc) and the Debian crew is very careful >>> about what they put into the 'stable' repositories. >> >> I agree totally. Debian in a server configuration is quite easy to get >> started with, and is rock solid. My first Linux "test server" (my old >> Pentium 133 MHz desktop) way back in 2002 ran Debian Woody. I kept it >> running until it died from old age a couple of years ago. Later I fell >> in love with Gentoo. But if I'd have to run a server with maximum >> stability and uptime, I think that I'd still prefer Debian. > > As an alternative viewpoint, I've been running the latest postgres on > Mac OS X Server 10.4, and it's been great for me. It was my first time > using a server, and my first serious use of postgres (although I have > had a lot of previous unix experience.) All the power of unix, all the > ease of the Macintosh (and it's server installation gives you lots of Pardon me for being the contrarian, but why does a server need a GUI? Isn't that just extra RAM & CPU overhead that could be more profitably put to use powering the application? > great things for free and already installed - granted most is publicly > available, but it's already installed and ready for use that's the big > advantage). Not only that, but I can run windoze in Parallels (or even > Boot Camp if I desired). - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGsUJ4S9HxQb37XmcRAggtAKCfNxfv4/+Qmwt/89jiun4jWsM/FACeMMld zyDp6ec4t12RF6XGnEE3uUg= =E95M -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 8/2/07, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote: > > As an alternative viewpoint, I've been running the latest postgres on > > Mac OS X Server 10.4, and it's been great for me. It was my first time > > using a server, and my first serious use of postgres (although I have > > had a lot of previous unix experience.) All the power of unix, all the > > ease of the Macintosh (and it's server installation gives you lots of > Pardon me for being the contrarian, but why does a server need a > GUI? Isn't that just extra RAM & CPU overhead that could be more > profitably put to use powering the application? Amen =) Unnecessary waste of resources, plus artificial introduction of stuff that can potentially make the machine go belly-up... a dedicated server should have the bare minimum install; as much as necessary and as little as possible. /me cringes at the idea of flying toasters slowing down a query ... :D > - -- > Ron Johnson, Jr. > Jefferson LA USA Cheers, Andrej
On 8/1/07, paolo@ecometer.it <paolo@ecometer.it> wrote: > Hello, > > I bought a Dell server and I am going to use it for installing PostgrSQL > 8.2.4. I always used Windows so far and I would like now to install a > Linux distribution on the new server. Any suggestion on which distribution > ? Fedora, Ubuntu server, Suse or others? There are several considerations to think about in choosing a distribution. Contrary to some other comments here I think it matters a lot. 1. support This is the #1 most important consideration, and why redhat/suse get paid the big $$$. For linux, there are only really two choices for paid support, redhat and suse. If you plan to pay to have someone fix your box when it breaks, choose redhat in u.s.a. and suse in europe, not sure elsewhere. Also, enterprise distros are supported longer, meaning you have to worry less about upgrading. This has a downside though, for example when redhat AS 5 was released the as 4 kernel (on 2.6.9) was starting to look really dated. small aside: you asked about linux but solaris is a viable option in this regard and is really doing some nice things working with the community. There is a fair amount of buzz around ZFS. Non-enterprise kernels are generally moving faster but you have to be more concerned about upgrades, security, etc. I would avoid fedora but have nothing but nice things to say about debian based systems (ubuntu, debian) in terms of packaging and stability. Generally, if you go this route you will depend on support from the community and from yourself. 2. performance the general trend is better performance for newer kernels. Since redhat AS 5 just came out, this is mostly a wash but consider some of the work going on in the linux scheduler and other things that might be interesting from database perspective. There are claims that the source compiled distributions (the best of class is probably gentoo) have a performance edge. 3. binary packaging While I like the debian distros generally, I dislike the debian packaging of PostgreSQL. IMO, it's over engineered. If you plan to use binary packaging, you should understand the difference between the binary packages of the distribution of interest. RPMs are built and provided by the postgresql community and are always up to date. If not RPM based, pay close attention to how often your binary packages are updated because you may get stuck waiting for a bugfix otherwise. You of course always have the option of compiling PostgreSQL yourself. IMO, this is a fine way to go but you have to monitor what is going for updates, etc. 4. hardware support enterprise distros either support hardware directly or can leverage vendors to provide drivers which are usually binary RPMs. Other distributions generally derive hardware support directly from the linux kernel. The kernel actually moves very fast and actually there is some advantages from having your hardware supported directly...for example booting from a hardware raid device is easier. That being said, driver quality for server gear is all over the map and it's a real roll of the dice. In summary, I think using an enterprise kernel is usually a better choice for a database box. If you don't want to spend any money the best choice is probably CentOS. However, I hear see tremendous buzz around ubuntu in the desktop side of things and expect this ultimately to translate into a play into the server market. I would actually consider ubuntu server a reasonably choice but I would stick with an LTS release if possible. The main advantage of ubuntu is that since it i generally regarded the best desktop distro you get a more uniform environment if you develop in linux (which i highly recommend) as well as deploy it on the server. merlin
On 8/2/07, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/01/07 10:37, Owen Hartnett wrote: > > At 4:52 PM +0200 8/1/07, Leif B. Kristensen wrote: > >> On Wednesday 1. August 2007 16:15, Madison Kelly wrote: > >> > >>> /Personally/, I love Debian on servers. > >>> > >>> It's not quite as 'hardcore' as Gentoo (a great distro, but not one to > >>> start with!). It's the foundation of many of the popular distros > >>> (Ubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix, etc) and the Debian crew is very careful > >>> about what they put into the 'stable' repositories. > >> > >> I agree totally. Debian in a server configuration is quite easy to get > >> started with, and is rock solid. My first Linux "test server" (my old > >> Pentium 133 MHz desktop) way back in 2002 ran Debian Woody. I kept it > >> running until it died from old age a couple of years ago. Later I fell > >> in love with Gentoo. But if I'd have to run a server with maximum > >> stability and uptime, I think that I'd still prefer Debian. > > > > As an alternative viewpoint, I've been running the latest postgres on > > Mac OS X Server 10.4, and it's been great for me. It was my first time > > using a server, and my first serious use of postgres (although I have > > had a lot of previous unix experience.) All the power of unix, all the > > ease of the Macintosh (and it's server installation gives you lots of > > Pardon me for being the contrarian, but why does a server need a > GUI? Isn't that just extra RAM & CPU overhead that could be more > profitably put to use powering the application? A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which require a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing X, so IMO a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome is maybe overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen saver :-) merlin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/01/07 21:44, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote: > On 8/2/07, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote: > >>> As an alternative viewpoint, I've been running the latest postgres on >>> Mac OS X Server 10.4, and it's been great for me. It was my first time >>> using a server, and my first serious use of postgres (although I have >>> had a lot of previous unix experience.) All the power of unix, all the >>> ease of the Macintosh (and it's server installation gives you lots of >> Pardon me for being the contrarian, but why does a server need a >> GUI? Isn't that just extra RAM & CPU overhead that could be more >> profitably put to use powering the application? > Amen =) > > Unnecessary waste of resources, plus artificial introduction of stuff > that can potentially make the machine go belly-up... a dedicated > server should have the bare minimum install; as much as necessary > and as little as possible. That's (one reason) why I like Debian. It's packages are so granular that you can only install what you want to install. I.e., Python without the GNOME or KDE language bindings, which would also drag in GNOME/KDE and X.org. > /me cringes at the idea of flying toasters slowing down a query ... :D - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGsUokS9HxQb37XmcRAvYQAKC/ju2KOmb3ZOt8rCPd/CEc6cJJrgCfXOVM aS08rA2LtbDNf/h1HUqbSI8= =WIP6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/01/07 21:58, Merlin Moncure wrote: [snip] > > 3. binary packaging > While I like the debian distros generally, I dislike the debian > packaging of PostgreSQL. IMO, it's over engineered. If you plan to How so? - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGsUqHS9HxQb37XmcRAg0+AKCiY79IVE0APk6YcF6HSlIoRmvshACfTH+2 hTCDwDo40q4+VPlHBAjxLIc= =ysHU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 8/2/07, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero > resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which require > a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing X, so IMO > a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome is maybe > overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen saver :-) So you don't consider RAM a resource? :) I just went and rebooted my workstation, here's a top from just after the reboot, with the box idling on the xdm login prompt. top - 15:40:35 up 2 min, 1 user, load average: 0.79, 0.60, 0.24 Tasks: 65 total, 1 running, 64 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie Cpu(s): 0.0%us, 0.0%sy, 0.0%ni,100.0%id, 0.0%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st Mem: 1800544k total, 95164k used, 1705380k free, 10408k buffers Swap: 738856k total, 0k used, 738856k free, 53576k cached PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND 4735 root 18 0 52524 7204 4304 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.01 httpd 4820 root 15 0 141m 6648 3140 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.64 X 4739 nobody 16 0 52660 5476 2540 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.00 httpd 4740 nobody 16 0 52660 5476 2540 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.00 httpd 4741 nobody 16 0 52660 5476 2540 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.00 httpd 4742 nobody 20 0 52660 5476 2540 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.00 httpd 4743 nobody 21 0 52660 5476 2540 S 0.0 0.3 0:00.00 httpd 4756 postgres 18 0 35832 3696 3244 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.12 postmaster 4762 root 16 0 4052 2872 1260 S 0.0 0.2 0:00.17 bash 4737 root 18 0 10272 2640 1848 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 smbd 4635 root 15 0 5920 2036 1400 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.03 cupsd 4823 root 15 0 3748 1932 1452 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.01 xdm 4646 root 15 0 6496 1896 920 S 0.0 0.1 0:00.00 sendmail Also note that at that stage the X process has had the most CPU cycles as well (which might be different if I could let it idle for much longer - but I need to answer this e-Mail :D and gmail doesn't work with lynx). > merlin -- Cheers, Andrej
Andrej Ricnik-Bay escribió: > On 8/2/07, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > > > A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero > > resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which require > > a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing X, so IMO > > a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome is maybe > > overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen saver :-) > So you don't consider RAM a resource? :) > > I just went and rebooted my workstation, here's a top from > just after the reboot, with the box idling on the xdm login prompt. I think most of the virtual memory used by X is actually the map of the graphics card's memory AFAIK, so it's not as significant as you think. > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > 4735 root 18 0 52524 7204 4304 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.01 httpd > 4820 root 15 0 141m 6648 3140 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.64 X -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/ "Siempre hay que alimentar a los dioses, aunque la tierra esté seca" (Orual)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 08/01/07 22:05, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 8/2/07, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 08/01/07 10:37, Owen Hartnett wrote: >>> At 4:52 PM +0200 8/1/07, Leif B. Kristensen wrote: >>>> On Wednesday 1. August 2007 16:15, Madison Kelly wrote: >>>> >>>>> /Personally/, I love Debian on servers. >>>>> >>>>> It's not quite as 'hardcore' as Gentoo (a great distro, but not one to >>>>> start with!). It's the foundation of many of the popular distros >>>>> (Ubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix, etc) and the Debian crew is very careful >>>>> about what they put into the 'stable' repositories. >>>> I agree totally. Debian in a server configuration is quite easy to get >>>> started with, and is rock solid. My first Linux "test server" (my old >>>> Pentium 133 MHz desktop) way back in 2002 ran Debian Woody. I kept it >>>> running until it died from old age a couple of years ago. Later I fell >>>> in love with Gentoo. But if I'd have to run a server with maximum >>>> stability and uptime, I think that I'd still prefer Debian. >>> As an alternative viewpoint, I've been running the latest postgres on >>> Mac OS X Server 10.4, and it's been great for me. It was my first time >>> using a server, and my first serious use of postgres (although I have >>> had a lot of previous unix experience.) All the power of unix, all the >>> ease of the Macintosh (and it's server installation gives you lots of >> Pardon me for being the contrarian, but why does a server need a >> GUI? Isn't that just extra RAM & CPU overhead that could be more >> profitably put to use powering the application? > > A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero > resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which require > a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing X, so IMO > a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome is maybe > overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen saver :-) X is network-transparent. Load the few necessary X libraries (Debian's packages are granular enough to do this), and then use the GUI on your workstation to run all those foolish GUI-based server (in a room down the hall, across town or across the country, with compressed X) apps. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Hit him with a fish, and he goes away for good! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGsW1OS9HxQb37XmcRAoUYAKCZqXlRD9LmVIXHLuPe3YhWxJzppQCghP5x zCLmJdjJLz+NnyMlwNGJG5E= =f6TY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 8/2/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > 4735 root 18 0 52524 7204 4304 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.01 httpd > > 4820 root 15 0 141m 6648 3140 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.64 X > I think most of the virtual memory used by X is actually the map of the > graphics card's memory AFAIK, so it's not as significant as you think. That machine has an on-board chipset (i845) and has only 8MB shared memory allotted to the card .... Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
On 8/2/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej.groups@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/07, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: > > > PID USER PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND > > > 4735 root 18 0 52524 7204 4304 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.01 httpd > > > 4820 root 15 0 141m 6648 3140 S 0.0 0.4 0:00.64 X > > I think most of the virtual memory used by X is actually the map of the > > graphics card's memory AFAIK, so it's not as significant as you think. > That machine has an on-board chipset (i845) and has only 8MB > shared memory allotted to the card .... You don't seem familiar with the meaning of VIRT in the memory allocation listing there. VIRT includes all the sizes of all the libraries that the process has opened, whether they've been loaded or not. i.e. apache shows 52 Meg there, but only has 7.2Meg resident. If it manages to do something that needs the dynamic libs they'll get loaded into real memory and take up real space. until then, it's only using 7.2 meg or so. The same is true of X here. It has 141M of total memory taken between resident, shared and all the libs it's linked to, but it's only actually using 6.6 meg of phyiscal memory. If those ever do get used, then they could take up real physical memory. but on a server, it's quite likely that they never will. And if they do, then sit idle for some length of time, the OS will swap them out to make space for the OS to do something else in. If the programs resident in the 6.6 meg of physical memory don't see much use, they too will be swapped out to make space for caching etc as well. I can't imagine that 6.6 meg making a big difference on most servers nowadays. I/O bandwidth, network bandwidth, memory bandwidth, number of CPUs, all are probably more important than a 6.6 meg chunk of memory.
On 8/2/07, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I think most of the virtual memory used by X is actually the map of the > > > graphics card's memory AFAIK, so it's not as significant as you think. > > That machine has an on-board chipset (i845) and has only 8MB > > shared memory allotted to the card .... > You don't seem familiar with the meaning of VIRT in the memory > allocation listing there. That'll be Alvaro, maybe? I'm quite aware of it, I just pointed out to him that the VSIZE is NOT the devices memory mapping. And I still think that running X on a server is unnecessary, wasteful and potentially harmful. The less you run, the less can go wrong, the less potential exploits you have. Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
Ron Johnson wrote: > Pardon me for being the contrarian, but why does a server need a > GUI? Isn't that just extra RAM & CPU overhead that could be more > profitably put to use powering the application? What I do is install Gnome, "just in case" I need it for some reason (ie: opening many terminal windows at a higher res that I can alt+tab between). Then once the install is done I delete the '/etc/rc2.d/S??gdm' file, then '/etc/init.d/gdm stop'. Problem solved. :) This gives me the *option* of using a GUI without it wasting any resources besides some disk space. Madi
On 8/2/07, Madison Kelly <linux@alteeve.com> wrote: > What I do is install Gnome, "just in case" I need it for some reason > (ie: opening many terminal windows at a higher res that I can alt+tab > between). ssh and/or screen ... > Madi Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero > resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which require > a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing X, so IMO > a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome is maybe > overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen saver :-) That's kind of the crux of it. X sessions tend to do things like run 3d screen savers, periodically check cdrom drives for new disks, periodically wake up to update load graphs or network graphs, etc. Even login screens are getting fancier and even the regular non-3d screen saver is a problem. For a benchmark machine you really don't want to find out after you run your benchmarks that there are mysterious spikes or dips and have to waste energy tracking down where they come from. I'm unclear why you would be running the enterprise management tools on individual machines though. Isn't the point of enterprise management tools that you can manage the whole enterprise? Ie, that they work remotely? -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Gregory Stark wrote: > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > >> A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero >> resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which require >> a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing X, so IMO >> a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome is maybe >> overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen saver :-) > > That's kind of the crux of it. X sessions tend to do things like run 3d screen > savers, periodically check cdrom drives for new disks, periodically wake up to > update load graphs or network graphs, etc. Spent a happy afternoon some years ago trying to figure out why an NT server would be fine while I was checking its settings, but would seem to crawl after half an hour. Turned out it had some funky 3D screensaver enabled - it'd grind to a halt, I'd come up, hit the spacebar and not find anything slowing the system down. Obvious once, I'd got the system monitoring turned on, but PITA until then. Moral: If it's not doing something immediately useful, I don't want it running on my server. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
On 8/2/07, Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes: > > > A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero > > resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which require > > a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing X, so IMO > > a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome is maybe > > overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen saver :-) > > That's kind of the crux of it. X sessions tend to do things like run 3d screen > savers, periodically check cdrom drives for new disks, periodically wake up to > update load graphs or network graphs, etc. > > Even login screens are getting fancier and even the regular non-3d screen > saver is a problem. > > For a benchmark machine you really don't want to find out after you run your > benchmarks that there are mysterious spikes or dips and have to waste energy > tracking down where they come from. > > I'm unclear why you would be running the enterprise management tools on > individual machines though. Isn't the point of enterprise management tools > that you can manage the whole enterprise? Ie, that they work remotely? they do, but experience has shown it is prudent to be able to administrate the hardware directly from the box. I expect trend of desktop style management to continue (for the record, I would really prefer these devices to present html interfaces vs. java). Also, I just checked cpu usage of X on my desktop and it was using 0.03 seconds of cpu time every 20 seconds or so, or about 0.18%, some of which was used to update top on screen (i was running a failsafe terminal)...gdm, etc are completely idle. ubuntu, at least, gives you nothing you have to turn off. I'm actually recently converted from the 'anti-x' camp. This is because I'm now using linux on a desktop and found it to be remarkably efficient but also was recently in a situation where I regretted not having it installed. I completely understand and sympathize with the other side of the argument however. I just don't care anymore, maybe I'm getting old :-). merlin
mmoncure@gmail.com ("Merlin Moncure") writes:
> On 8/2/07, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote:
>> Pardon me for being the contrarian, but why does a server need a
>> GUI? Isn't that just extra RAM & CPU overhead that could be more
>> profitably put to use powering the application?
>
> A server with a GUI sitting on a login screen is wasting zero
> resources. Some enterprise management tools are in java which
> require a GUI to use so there is very little downside to installing
> X, so IMO a lightweight window manager is appropriate...a full gnome
> is maybe overkill. Obviously, you want to turn of the 3d screen
> saver :-)
The server does not need the overhead of having *any* of the "X
desktop" things running; it doesn't even need an X server.
You don't need X running on the server in order use those "enterprise
management" tools; indeed, in a "lights out" environment, that server
hasn't even got a graphics card, which means that an X server *can't*
be running on it.
--
"cbbrowne","@","linuxfinances.info"
http://linuxfinances.info/info/x.html
"Linux poses a real challenge for those with a taste for late-night
hacking (and/or conversations with God)." -- Matt Welsh
On 8/3/07, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > they do, but experience has shown it is prudent to be able to > administrate the hardware directly from the box. I'm curious: which aspect of hardware administration on a Linux box would require X (to be running)? If I *really* needed applet such-and-such I could still run it easily, with less overhead and w/o the X server even being installed on the big iron from my desktop ... ssh -X user@server whizbangGUItool > I expect trend of desktop style management to continue > (for the record, I would really prefer these devices to present > html interfaces vs. java). I'm afraid you're right - and it was what I dislike(d) most about Oracles products. The fact that 10g ships with the actual database on a CD, and the admin stuff on DVDs. Friggin nightmare. > I'm actually recently converted from the 'anti-x' camp. This is > because I'm now using linux on a desktop and found it to be remarkably > efficient but also was recently in a situation where I regretted not > having it installed. I completely understand and sympathize with the > other side of the argument however. I just don't care anymore, maybe > I'm getting old :-). Nuh mate, that's not old, it's inefficient (and too lazy to know the ropes, relying on an "intuitive GUI") ;} ... /me ducks > merlin Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Andrej Ricnik-Bay wrote: > I'm curious: which aspect of hardware administration > on a Linux box would require X (to be running)? If I *really* It's not that it can't be done, it's that having a window environment can make things easier. (I find 24x80 pretty cramped, and I like large scrollback buffers.) But like most computer efficiency questions, this whole thread tangent boils down to how much overhead you want your computer to dedicate to making your life easier at the expense of whatever else it was supposed to be doing.
On 8/3/07, Ben <bench@silentmedia.com> wrote: > > I'm curious: which aspect of hardware administration > > on a Linux box would require X (to be running)? If I *really* > It's not that it can't be done, it's that having a window environment can > make things easier. (I find 24x80 pretty cramped, and I like large > scrollback buffers.) So I make my xterm on my workstation be 134x80, with a line buffer of 8000 and then ssh into the server :} > But like most computer efficiency questions, this whole thread tangent > boils down to how much overhead you want your computer to dedicate to > making your life easier at the expense of whatever else it was supposed to > be doing. True that. Same for how many potential vulnerabilities I'm willing to introduce for the sake of convenience. Not that I'd find it convenient to drive the 40Km to the data- centre to get physical access to the servers, mind you. Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
On 8/2/07, Andrej Ricnik-Bay <andrej.groups@gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/3/07, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote: > > > they do, but experience has shown it is prudent to be able to > > administrate the hardware directly from the box. > > I'm curious: which aspect of hardware administration > on a Linux box would require X (to be running)? If I *really* > needed applet such-and-such I could still run it easily, with > less overhead and w/o the X server even being installed on > the big iron from my desktop ... > > ssh -X user@server whizbangGUItool > [...] > Cheers, > Andrej There is of course no *requirement* for this to be the case, but one must make concessions for the fact that not everyone is at the same level of administration. To make Linux more accessible, a GUI is added for those people. Those people are just as smart and equally talented, but simply may not have the time to learn every command line detail to get a server up. While I agree that one can also use ssh and a remote X display (and is personally how I would do it, if not just pure command line), it is not that much of a stretch to understand that someone else's circumstances may not allow this without more additional setup which requires more time. Also, while the usual runlevel for a system would be 3, keeping a system at runlevel 5 would not realistically use more resources. When the system starts up, it will load the X server and xdm only (not gnome or anything else until someone logs in), and when not used all of that will get paged out to disk, so all it is taking up is a fraction of the CPU to make the login cursor blink. Any default screensaver will basically just blank the screen.
Chris Browne wrote: > > The server does not need the overhead of having *any* of the "X > desktop" things running; it doesn't even need an X server. > > You don't need X running on the server in order use those "enterprise > management" tools; indeed, in a "lights out" environment, that server > hasn't even got a graphics card, which means that an X server *can't* > be running on it. Well, sure it can. Nothing says a X server has to write directly to a graphics card or anything. It could write to some frame buffer in memory and allow access to it through VNC, for example. http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/dtg/attarchive/vnc/xvnc.html But of course I agree it makes no sense for a database server to also be running a GUI server; and ideally not even wasting electricity and space in the box for a graphics chip or monitor connector.
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:22:24AM -0400, Kenneth Downs wrote: > Ubuntu: What Windows wants to be, what the Mac is w/o the $$$$ and with > more control. I just replaced a hard drive in a dell machine. A ... > Great graphics, great package management. However, it is still Linux > and you still have to do some Googling here and there to find a HOWTO. > Perhaps the most annoying problem is lack of support for widescreen > monitors, you have to type tech data into an X config to get that > working. Also, IMHO stay away from 7.04, I've tried it on two machines Sorry, couldn't let that pass. In 3 statements you just proved why Ubuntu isn't remotely close to OS X. OS X pretty much just gets the heck out of your way so you can do real work. Networking just works. Video just works. By and large, you just don't have to mess with anything. Not only that, but you still have all the unix tools you're used to (though for development you'll need to install Xcode, but that comes with recent versions so it's not a big deal). Of course, that's not for everyone. If you want to really get down and dirty with your OS, you'll be happier with *BSD, Linux or perhaps OpenDarwin. Personally, I'm past that. I just want the stupid thing to work with a minimum of fuss so I can get on to doing database stuff. :) -- Decibel!, aka Jim Nasby decibel@decibel.org EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Attachment
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Decibel! wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:22:24AM -0400, Kenneth Downs wrote:
>> Ubuntu: What Windows wants to be, what the Mac is w/o the $$$$ and with
>> more control. I just replaced a hard drive in a dell machine. A
> ...
>> Great graphics, great package management. However, it is still Linux
>> and you still have to do some Googling here and there to find a HOWTO.
>> Perhaps the most annoying problem is lack of support for widescreen
>> monitors, you have to type tech data into an X config to get that
>> working. Also, IMHO stay away from 7.04, I've tried it on two machines
>
> Sorry, couldn't let that pass. In 3 statements you just proved why
> Ubuntu isn't remotely close to OS X. OS X pretty much just gets the heck
> out of your way so you can do real work. Networking just works. Video
> just works. By and large, you just don't have to mess with anything. Not
> only that, but you still have all the unix tools you're used to (though
> for development you'll need to install Xcode, but that comes with recent
> versions so it's not a big deal).
>
> Of course, that's not for everyone. If you want to really get down and
> dirty with your OS, you'll be happier with *BSD, Linux or perhaps
> OpenDarwin. Personally, I'm past that. I just want the stupid thing to
> work with a minimum of fuss so I can get on to doing database stuff. :)
You mean like my Ubuntu Laptop? ;).
Here is the difference:
1. Linux + Gnome (or kde) correctly configured is *almost* as usable as
Mac OSX.
2. Mac OSX is proprietary even down to the hardware. That is enough for
me to not use it. I gave up the whole IBM/SUN/SGI/HP fiasco of closed
door unix and hardware a decade ago.
3. Mac OSX is ugly. I know I just made a bunch of people poo in their
leather pants but it is. It is really ugly. I want clean, out of my way,
customizable interface that works the way "I" work. Not the way the kool
aide drinking fan boys of apple work.
That being said, I sure as heck wish that X + KDE or X + Gnome didn't
give me two paste buffers ;)
And with that beautiful flame... out!
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGtSkDATb/zqfZUUQRAqJcAJ49uUNHQcPzAMrxBgl84mF2414k3ACgrWS+
J1fzjaf2m0V+oG2KhiWHbX4=
=3q9/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 2. Mac OSX is proprietary even down to the hardware. That is enough for > me to not use it. I gave up the whole IBM/SUN/SGI/HP fiasco of closed > door unix and hardware a decade ago. Wow :) Maybe you need to re-visit Sun gear again, OpenSolaris, OpenCluster are only but a subset of the unix tools that Sun have provided to the OSS community. Although, as a desktop, SX (Solars Express) is as freindly as you will currently get, hjopefully it will get better. However, IMHO, there is *no* better OE than Solaris (Except maybe Slackware), given the choice, Solaris every time, just cannot beat the scalability and robustness of the OE :)
On 8/5/07, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > [...] > 3. Mac OSX is ugly. I know I just made a bunch of people poo in their > leather pants but it is. It is really ugly. I want clean, out of my way, > customizable interface that works the way "I" work. Not the way the kool > aide drinking fan boys of apple work. And they're a complete nightmare to maintain or cater for in a heterogeneous environment. In my last employment I was praying that they would just disappear from the surface of the earth :D ... even Windows was easier to set-up./deal with there .... mind you, it *was* and AD shop, mostly. Linux tied in quite nicely. The Macs ... AD integration, network integration in general, stupid features around web-browsing, ... /me shudders ... > And with that beautiful flame... out! > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake Cheers, Andrej -- Please don't top post, and don't use HTML e-Mail :} Make your quotes concise. http://www.american.edu/econ/notes/htmlmail.htm
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> 3. Mac OSX is ugly. I know I just made a bunch of people poo in their
> leather pants but it is. It is really ugly. I want clean, out of my way,
> customizable interface that works the way "I" work. Not the way the kool
> aide drinking fan boys of apple work.
>
> That being said, I sure as heck wish that X + KDE or X + Gnome didn't
> give me two paste buffers ;)
KDE's kipper application can fix that:
http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdebase/klipper/general-tab.html
with option:
Synchronize contents of the clipboard and the selection
(I just learned that in trying out PC-BSD on my laptop.)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bruce McAlister wrote:
>> 2. Mac OSX is proprietary even down to the hardware. That is enough for
>> me to not use it. I gave up the whole IBM/SUN/SGI/HP fiasco of closed
>> door unix and hardware a decade ago.
> Wow :) Maybe you need to re-visit Sun gear again, OpenSolaris,
> OpenCluster are only but a subset of the unix tools that Sun have
I wasn't referring to "current" Sun, but the Sun of a decade ago.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
> provided to the OSS community. Although, as a desktop, SX (Solars
> Express) is as freindly as you will currently get, hjopefully it will
> get better. However, IMHO, there is *no* better OE than Solaris (Except
> maybe Slackware), given the choice, Solaris every time, just cannot beat
> the scalability and robustness of the OE :)
>
- --
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFGtTwdATb/zqfZUUQRAhNGAJ98K4gi6+1Ea9BduVofHko3X3E18gCfUz49
VJejC8Y/0Y1cdTwcqm2hY64=
=bcoH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: >> 3. Mac OSX is ugly. I know I just made a bunch of people poo in their >> leather pants but it is. It is really ugly. I want clean, out of my way, >> customizable interface that works the way "I" work. Not the way the kool >> aide drinking fan boys of apple work. >> >> That being said, I sure as heck wish that X + KDE or X + Gnome didn't >> give me two paste buffers ;) > > KDE's kipper application can fix that: > > http://docs.kde.org/stable/en/kdebase/klipper/general-tab.html > > with option: > > Synchronize contents of the clipboard and the selection > > (I just learned that in trying out PC-BSD on my laptop.) Oh wow... that is cool. Thanks for the tip! Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > - -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/ Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGtTxeATb/zqfZUUQRAipVAJ0W0XBiQNfKrN2sNsW4l1YV74xIrACdGAQo E/S4AJnU3ah84jNNw/jJ72c= =TlnV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 8/4/07, Decibel! <decibel@decibel.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 08:22:24AM -0400, Kenneth Downs wrote: > > Ubuntu: What Windows wants to be, what the Mac is w/o the $$$$ and with > > more control. I just replaced a hard drive in a dell machine. A > ... > > Great graphics, great package management. However, it is still Linux > > and you still have to do some Googling here and there to find a HOWTO. > > Perhaps the most annoying problem is lack of support for widescreen > > monitors, you have to type tech data into an X config to get that > > working. Also, IMHO stay away from 7.04, I've tried it on two machines > > Sorry, couldn't let that pass. In 3 statements you just proved why > Ubuntu isn't remotely close to OS X. OS X pretty much just gets the heck > out of your way so you can do real work. Networking just works. Video > just works. By and large, you just don't have to mess with anything. Not > only that, but you still have all the unix tools you're used to (though > for development you'll need to install Xcode, but that comes with recent > versions so it's not a big deal). I think you nailed it, but the situation is very fluid right now. I'm a recent convert to the desktop linux camp and here are some of my personal observations about what is going as well as some predictions. I've set up about 6 ubuntu desktop machines with feisty...about half were relatively easy and the other half had time consuming problems. It is virtually impossible to set up a high end desktop/laptop without at least some X tweaking. Most of the problems were display related and the new version (gutsy) will have major overhauls of the way X works and will be a big release. I am betting the next LTS release, the one after gutsy will be very successful. ubuntu already has tremendous momentum and it's looking pretty clear (at least to me) that it is going to make desktop linux a reality where so many previous efforts have failed due to the community and support efforts that are organizing around the project. On a very subjective level, I find the Gnome window manager (with Beryl/Compiz installed) to be much better and easier to use than the OS/X desktop. I bet this is mostly because I basically used windows too long and OS/X is a bigger departure. For purposes of development it's a wash,OS/X has some excellent tools (textpad, etc) but years of server deployment have made me very used to linux and I since I will probably never deploy PostgreSQL on OS/X (I have seen a lot of circumstantial evidence that the linux kernel is better for the PostgreSQL database) using ubuntu I get to work in a virtually uniform environment. I see big changes coming. The real sexy market is corporate workstations...if linux can crack this market, it will be a huge victory for open source. merlin