| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: File system choice for Red Hat systems |
| Date: | 2010-06-02 06:16:58 |
| Message-ID: | 4C05F75A.4070302@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Yeah, RHEL6 seems like the version we would prefer - unfortunately
> time frame is the next few days. Awesome - thanks for the quick reply!
The RHEL6 beta is out, I'm running it, and I expect a straightforward
upgrade path to the final release--I think I can just keep grabbing
updated packages. Depending on how long your transition from test into
production is, you might want to consider a similar move, putting RHEL6
onto something right now in nearly complete form and just slip in
updates as it moves toward the official release. It's already better
than RHEL5 at many things, even as a beta. The 2.6.18 kernel in
particular is looking painfully old nowadays.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.us
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre C | 2010-06-02 10:03:42 | Re: performance of temporary vs. regular tables |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2010-06-02 05:31:08 | Re: File system choice for Red Hat systems |