Greg has a good point. Ubuntu is a bit of a moving target. In contrast, Debian has a much slower release cycle than Ubuntu and is thus considered by many people to be preferable for production server applications. This is one of the reasons we plan on releasing appliances that are based on Debian in addition to Ubuntu in the next few months. Cheers, Liraz Greg Smith wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2008, Scott Marlowe wrote: > >> Are you familiar with this bug: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/debian/+source/linux/+bug/245779 >> >> It's the reason my latest db servers are running Centos 5.2, sadly. >> By the time I'd found the suggested workaround of setting a boot >> option of NO_HZ=y I was already migrated off ubuntu for db servers. > > Don't want to drag Liraz's thread completely off-topic, thus the new > subject. > > The response to that bug demonstrates one reason why I get a bit worked > up when people suggest using Ubuntu for any serious server work. Even > when bugs get fixed, it's far too often only via installing a newer > kernel, which puts you back to square one as far as testing goes. > Ubuntu puts minimal resources into back-porting kernel fixes into any > earlier version, LTS or not, because they're consumed with constantly > churning out new versions. The usual cut-and-paste response appears in > your thread same as it does in all the similar ones: > > "The Ubuntu Kernel Team is planning to move to the 2.6.27 kernel for the > upcoming Intrepid Ibex 8.10 release. As a result, the kernel team would > appreciate it if you could please test this newer 2.6.27 Ubuntu kernel." > > A good eye-opener if you don't believe who I'm characterizing things is > take a look at the location your bug ended up being parked at (and may > very well die at): > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/~ubuntu-kernel-team/+assignedbugs > > There you can gauge for yourself how concerned they are with fixing bugs > in older versions. You can't support yearly long-term support releases > and aggresively back-port fixes without way more resources dumped onto > the kernel team than Ubuntu has to apply. Even RedHat, who has a lot > more kernel engineers, doesn't even try. That's part of the reason why > it took more than two years between RHEL4 and 5. They were busy that > whole time backporting kernel fixes into the stable kernel, with major > update drops to it every six months, rather than just plowing ahead only > worrying about the newer ones. > > I love Ubuntu on the desktop, but you combine its aggresive releases and > limited kernel fix backporting with how much general kernel testing > quality keeps going down and you get a grim combination. I've realized > this is just an unavoidable consequence of how much change the Linux > kernel is going under every single day. Nobody seem to care anymore > about focusing on any individual kernel version long enough to squash > its bugs right anymore; those will all get fixed in the next version, > right? > > -- > * Greg Smith gsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
