Thread: Linux

I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run faster in a *inx environment.

What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from what I read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.

 

Best Regards

---

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Michael Gould
<mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net> wrote:
> I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move
> Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active
> directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One
> of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID
> processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I
> would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run
> faster in a *inx environment.
>
> What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from what I
> read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.

Whilst I won't discourage you from a move to Linux, which I think is a
good idea in general (and personally, my choice is RHEL - or CentOS if
you want free - for a production server), I will note that Hiroshi
Saito has ported ossp-uuid to Win64 now, and we're working on getting
it included in the next update of PG 9.0.


--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

On 11/4/2010 9:00 AM, Michael Gould wrote:
>
> What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from
> what I read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.
>

We use CentOS. I don't know of a good reason to look at other
distributions for a server today.

You may or may not see a performance difference. Typically the DB will
perform the same on the same hardware regardless of OS, but there are a
few reasons you might see differences at the margin or under specific loads.

In response to Michael Gould <mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net>:

> I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move
> Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active
> directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One
> of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID
> processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I
> would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run
> faster in a *inx environment.
>
> What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from what I
> read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.

<religion>
I use FreeBSD everywhere, and have over 10 years experience running
PostgreSQL on FreeBSD ... I've been extremely happy with how well
the two work together, including upgrade paths, performance, security,
and customizability.  I currently manage over 20 FreeBSD+PostgreSQL
servers at work.
</religion>

If you're married to Linux, remember that PostgreSQL has had a pretty
tight relationship with Red Hat for a while now.

Beyond that, I think that any Linux distro that caters to a server
environment will work well for you.

The thing (in my experience) that's going to make you happy or angry
is how well the packaging system works.  Find a distro whos packaging
system keeps up to date with PostgreSQL releases and value adds stuff
to make upgrading, management, and migration easier and you'll probably
have a distro that you'll be happy with.

--
Bill Moran
http://www.potentialtech.com
http://people.collaborativefusion.com/~wmoran/

On 11/04/2010 11:10 AM, Bill Moran wrote:

In response to Michael Gould <mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net>:
 

I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move
Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active
directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One
of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID
processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I
would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run
faster in a *inx environment.

What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from what I
read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.   

<religion>
I use FreeBSD everywhere, and have over 10 years experience running
PostgreSQL on FreeBSD ... I've been extremely happy with how well
the two work together, including upgrade paths, performance, security,
and customizability.  I currently manage over 20 FreeBSD+PostgreSQL
servers at work.
</religion>

If you're married to Linux, remember that PostgreSQL has had a pretty
tight relationship with Red Hat for a while now.

Beyond that, I think that any Linux distro that caters to a server
environment will work well for you.

The thing (in my experience) that's going to make you happy or angry
is how well the packaging system works.  Find a distro whos packaging
system keeps up to date with PostgreSQL releases and value adds stuff
to make upgrading, management, and migration easier and you'll probably
have a distro that you'll be happy with.
 

We have used FreeBSD but are moving to CentOS. Main reason is longer support window.
FreeBSD usually goes EOL in a year or two. CentOS 5.x is supported thru at least 2014.

On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 11:10:24AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote:

> Beyond that, I think that any Linux distro that caters to a server
> environment will work well for you.
>
> The thing (in my experience) that's going to make you happy or angry
> is how well the packaging system works.  Find a distro whos packaging
> system keeps up to date with PostgreSQL releases and value adds stuff
> to make upgrading, management, and migration easier and you'll probably
> have a distro that you'll be happy with.

With this argument in mind: Debian/Testing has very good
packages and support.

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM, Michael Gould
<mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net> wrote:
> I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move
> Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active
> directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One
> of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID
> processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I
> would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run
> faster in a *inx environment.
>
> What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from what I
> read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.

I've used RHEL, Centos, and Ubuntu as postgresql servers.  Latest
servers are Ubuntu because I needed a stable release with a late model
kernel to support and scale on 48 cores.  That said there were some
serious bumps in the road to getting 10.04 to work on our servers.

On 4 November 2010 15:00, Michael Gould
<mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net> wrote:
> I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move
> Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active
> directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One
> of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID
> processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I
> would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run
> faster in a *inx environment.

Let's not make the mistake of assuming that Windows and Linux are more
or less comparable as Postgres platforms - they aren't. Most large
installations are *nix based, and many tuning guides assume that you
are using some *nix flavour, or mention windows only very briefly. I'm
not sure of the details, but the windows System V IPC compatibility
layer (or whatever it's called) that we ship + windows, simply don't
work as well as native System V IPC running on the same hardware. This
is why users are encouraged to try lower shared_buffers settings on
windows - better results are attained on that platform by using
proportionally more file system/OS cache.

However, it is worth acknowledging that there has been some excellent
work towards getting Postgres to work well on Windows, which it now
does. I can personally attest to that.

--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Steve Clark <sclark@netwolves.com> wrote:
> We have used FreeBSD but are moving to CentOS. Main reason is longer support
> window.
> FreeBSD usually goes EOL in a year or two. CentOS 5.x is supported thru at
> least 2014.
>

FreeBSD 6.x was released in 2005 and was EOL'd finally last month.
FreeBSD 7.x was released in Feb 2008 and has no EOL yet.  It will be
at minimum 2013 since the 7.4 release will be out next year.

I guess if you need more than a 5 year support window it may make
sense, but otherwise that doesn't seem like a reasonable argument to
switch the whole OS.

The only legitimate reason to switch the OS, IMHO, is operational
experience of the people running it.

On 2010-11-04 16.00, Michael Gould wrote:
> I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move
> Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active
> directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One
> of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID
> processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I
> would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run
> faster in a *inx environment.
>
>
> What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from what I
> read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.
>

We're running Gentoo which is kind of unortodox but we're using the
gentoo portage system for deploy of our own software and have extensive
in-house experience with Gentoo. I wouldn't recommend it as a first time
linux install though.


--
Regards,
Robert "roppert" Gravsjö

mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net (Michael Gould) writes:
> What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from
> what I read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.

There are Ubuntu versions that don't promise support (e.g. - ongoing bug
& security fixes, and such) for nearly as long as one might like.

The sorts of distributions that do promise such things for longer
include:
  - Red Hat RHAS and such;
  - OpenSuSE;
  - CentOS;
  - Debian

You'll find people that are fans of each of these.  Not knowing any
particular basis to infer your preferences (and you mayn't be aware of
such, either!), it's tough to give any strong suggestions.

I don't think you'd be steered woefully wrong with any of them.
--
"I have  traveled the  length and breadth  of this country  and talked
with the best people, and can assure you that data processing is a fad
that won't  last out  the year".  --  Business books  editor, Prentice
Hall 1957

---

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 11:23:07 -0400
From: sclark@netwolves.com
To: wmoran@potentialtech.com
CC: mgould@intermodalsoftwaresolutions.net; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Linux

On 11/04/2010 11:10 AM, Bill Moran wrote:
(....)

>We have used FreeBSD but are moving to CentOS. Main reason is longer support window.
>FreeBSD usually goes EOL in a year or two. CentOS 5.x is supported thru at least 2014.


I am sorry, but why do you say that FreeBSD goes EOL in a year or two? FreeBSD system is not running like that.
Note: I am not telling that CentOS is good or not good, just that the FreeBSD EOL is not that soon, usually is 5 or more years, take a look at that.

I would recommend Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS (long time support - 5 years for ongoing bug & security fixes, and such).

Also, Ubuntu is in focus now, has great community and a most of recent books on Linux target Ubuntu (which is valid factor for educating people on new platform).
Ubuntu is great for first linux install.
I've tried other distros, but I'm working on and recommending Ubuntu.

I'm currently testing Ubuntu Server x64 10.04 LTS with pg 9.0 and looks good so far.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Esmin Gracic <esmin.gracic@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would recommend Ubuntu Server 10.04 LTS (long time support - 5 years for
> ongoing bug & security fixes, and such).
>
> Also, Ubuntu is in focus now, has great community and a most of recent books
> on Linux target Ubuntu (which is valid factor for educating people on new
> platform).
> Ubuntu is great for first linux install.
> I've tried other distros, but I'm working on and recommending Ubuntu.
>
> I'm currently testing Ubuntu Server x64 10.04 LTS with pg 9.0 and looks good
> so far.

Do yourself a favor and remove the ureadahead package now before you
experience the heartache I had after getting a server up, configured,
ready to go, and then have it not be able to boot because of it.  They
may have fixed that nasty bug by now, but if not, it's pretty horrific
to have your new server refuse to boot because it has no GUI... (long
story)

> Whilst I won't discourage you from a move to Linux, which I think is a
> good idea in general (and personally, my choice is RHEL - or CentOS if
> you want free - for a production server), I will note that Hiroshi
> Saito has ported ossp-uuid to Win64 now, and we're working on getting
> it included in the next update of PG 9.0.
>
That is good news, but I'm still thinking of moving to Linux because it
appears that much more tuning can be accomplished and that you don't get the
kitchen sink when you don't need it.

Best Regard
--
Michael Gould, Managing Partner
Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC
904.226.0978
904.592.5250 fax

Thanks for all of the information.  I will now need to spend some time
looking at the various distributions that were mentioned here.

Best Regards
--
Michael Gould, Managing Partner
Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC
904.226.0978
904.592.5250 fax

On 11/04/2010 04:00 PM, Michael Gould wrote:
> I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to
> move Postgres to a Linux server. We currently have a Windows 2008 R2
> active directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare
> ESXi. One of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server
> and the UUID processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version
> for Windows. I would also assume that the database when properly tuned
> will probably run faster in a *inx environment.
>
> What and why should I look at certain distributions? It appears from
> what I read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.
>
> Best Regards
>

Just find one that ships with the latest PG, to save you some work.
Unless you plan to compile & install PG manually, in that case, any
major distribution would do. For production use, how long your version
will be supported for (security updates) is likely to be the most
important item in your checklist. I use CentOS.

.TM.

On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 12:18 PM, Marco Colombo <pgsql@esiway.net> wrote:
> On 11/04/2010 04:00 PM, Michael Gould wrote:
>>
>> I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to
>> move Postgres to a Linux server. We currently have a Windows 2008 R2
>> active directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare
>> ESXi. One of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server
>> and the UUID processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version
>> for Windows. I would also assume that the database when properly tuned
>> will probably run faster in a *inx environment.
>>
>> What and why should I look at certain distributions? It appears from
>> what I read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.
>>
>> Best Regards
>>
>
> Just find one that ships with the latest PG, to save you some work. Unless
> you plan to compile & install PG manually, in that case, any major
> distribution would do. For production use, how long your version will be
> supported for (security updates) is likely to be the most important item in
> your checklist. I use CentOS.

Note that if you'll be running in a mixed server environment, and you
want to use slony replication, it's a good idea to just build pgsql
and slony from source.    For instance on Ubuntu (and i'd assume all
debian systems) the pg_config is always from the latest pg version
supported by that distro.  slony can't properly build on those
machines against anything but the latest release.  Also, it allows you
to make sure of things like int dates are on all machines, etc.  Where
I work we have older db servers running Centos and newer ones running
Ubuntu, and the only way to get slony and pg 8.3 happy there was
building from source.  Luckily with pgsql it's a freaking snap to have
a configure.local with all the switches for slony and postgresql ready
to go.

The choice depends more on what you want / need to have than what people think you want / need.

I would say that if you pick any of the big four you will be fine.
CentOS
Ubuntu Server LTS
Red Hat
Suse
Debian can also be a good choice.
We used to be an OpenSuse shop but we are now moving everything to Ubuntu Server LTS. I can not say enough good things about CentOS as far as stability and long support times.


On 11/4/2010 11:00 AM, Michael Gould wrote:

I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking to move Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows 2008 R2 active directory and all of the other servers are virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One of the reasons is that we want to use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID processing contrib module does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I would also assume that the database when properly tuned will probably run faster in a *inx environment.

What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears from what I read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.

 

Best Regards

---

Michael Gould, Managing Partner
Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC

904.226.0978

904.592.5250 fax

I use Centos for production and Fedora for development and I am very
happy with both.  Especially Centos as I have never had an update break
anything.

On Fri, 2010-11-05 at 09:50 -0400, David Siebert wrote:
> I would say that if you pick any of the big four you will be fine.
> CentOS
> Ubuntu Server LTS
> Red Hat
> Suse
> Debian can also be a good choice.
> We used to be an OpenSuse shop but we are now moving everything to
> Ubuntu Server LTS. I can not say enough good things about CentOS as
> far as stability and long support times.
>
>
> On 11/4/2010 11:00 AM, Michael Gould wrote:
> > I know that this is probably a "religion" issue but we are looking
> > to move Postgres to a Linux server.  We currently have a Windows
> > 2008 R2 active directory and all of the other servers are
> > virtualized via VMWare ESXi.  One of the reasons is that we want to
> > use a 64 bit Postgres server and the UUID processing contrib module
> > does not provide a 64 bit version for Windows.  I would also assume
> > that the database when properly tuned will probably run faster in a
> > *inx environment.
> >
> > What and why should I look at certain distributions?  It appears
> > from what I read, Ubanta is a good desktop but not a server.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards
> >
> >
> > ____________________________________________________________________
> > Michael Gould, Managing Partner
> > Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC
> > 904.226.0978
> > 904.592.5250 fax
>

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Jason Long
<mailing.lists@octgsoftware.com> wrote:
> I use Centos for production and Fedora for development and I am very
> happy with both.  Especially Centos as I have never had an update break
> anything.

I have to agree that Centos is tank-like in its reliability and its
updates.  It's a stable, safe option.  And it has real long term
support.  While I'm currently using Ubuntu LTS 10.04.1, I know that
LTS to Ubuntu isn't nearly as big of a commitment as long term support
for Centos / RedHat is.

I've seen bugs reported right after 8.04 LTS came out, bugs that were
never addressed or fixed.  Many of them affected me.  The standard
answer was "try 8.10, try 9.xx, try etc..."

Imagine if you were running RHEL 5 or Centos 5 and they told you to
"try fedora" for a fix.  No way.  Ubuntu still has a long way to go to
catch up to that level of commercial friendly support and bug fixing.
But if you're willing to put up with their awful bug fixing pace, and
the release, as released, works for you, then it's an ok option.