On Sun, 4 Oct 2009, Mark Mielke wrote:
On 10/04/2009 01:55 PM, Devrim GÜNDÜZ wrote:
On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:05 -0400, Mark Mielke wrote:
So any comparisons between operating system *distributions* should be
fair. Comparing a 2007 release to a 2009 release, for example, is not
fair. RHEL / CentOS are basically out of the running right now,
because
they are so old.
Some people call these "stability" .
Note that if a deployment is running well, and has been running well for
years, there is probably no reasonable justification to change it. My
comments are for *new* deployments. If somebody were to come to you with a
*new* deployment request, what would you recommend? Would you really
recommend RHEL 5 *today*?
I use the following systems:
RHEL4
RHEL5
Fedora 11, latest updates and kernels.
Basically, all systems are stable but all of them have "problems":
RHEL4, RHEL5: Old, but proven systems, missing new features and still
bugs that have already been fixed.
Fedora 11: Bleeding edge system, but with new bugs and systems are
getting even slower with newer kernels:-(
Examples are major bugs in latest kernels in the CFQ scheduler:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13401#c16
Linux kernel slows down:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=fedora_test_2008&num=4
So software will always have either less features or bugs :-) So it is
always a tradeoff between stability and bleeding edge.
Ciao,
Gerhard
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
