On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 May 2009, Scott Carey wrote:
>> There are operations/IT people won't touch Ubuntu etc with a ten foot pole
>> yet for production.
> The only thing I was suggesting is that because 2.6.28 is the latest Ubuntu
> kernel, that means it's gotten a lot more exposure and testing than, say,
> other options like 2.6.27 or 2.6.29.
> I build a fair number of RedHat/CentOS systems with an upgraded kernel based
> on mature releases from kernel.org, and a config as close as possible to the
> original RedHat one, with the generic kernel defaults for all the new
> settings. I keep liking that combination better than just using an Ubuntu
> version with a newer kernel. I've seen a couple of odd kernel setting
> choices in Ubuntu releases before that motivate that choice; the scheduler
> trainwreck described at
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/188226 comes to mind.
8.04 was a frakking train wreck in many ways. It wasn't until 8.04.2
came out that it was even close to useable as a server OS, and even
then, not for databases yet. It's still got broken bits and pieces
marked "fixed in 8.10"... Uh, hello, it's your LTS release, fixes
should be made there as a priority. There's a reason my dbs run on
Centos / RHEL. It's not the fastest release ever, but it doesn't go
down on me and it just works.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Erik Aronesty||Date: 2009-05-31 09:59:35|
|Subject: degenerate performance on one server of 3|
|Previous:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2009-05-31 03:41:53|
|Subject: Re: Scalability in postgres|