Re: what Linux to run

Hmm...

I tend to _mostly_ run workstations rather than servers, & pick my distro to suit my application needs.

My workplace is a SLES site, & I use Open Suse. Given most of my Postgres databases are in fact PostGIS databases, and
needto work with a variety of other spatial data & GIS related apps, then I have a set of dependencies to work with for
everyinstall. Postgres, Postgis, GEOS, Proj, GDAL, mapserver, Java, python. QGIS, GMT, etc. 

I have liased with the package maintainers who look after the Suse GEO repository, and they are generally able to build
anyrequired package, for both server * workstation distros (SLED, SLES, OpenSuse). 

Having robust packages built by people who know more than I do about this area is core to my selection of distro. While
I'maware that Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora also have GIS related repositories, the OPenSuse ones have, for me at least, the
bestmix of currency & stability, & fantastic support. 

If your goal is to run a robust Postgres server, find the mainstream  distro which provides what you want out of the
box,so you can run the database, not wrestle with compiling it every time something changes. Only consider compiling
yourown applications if there is no such distro, or you really want to have that level of control & ownership of the
system.

Also, if you are running a VM as your server, then under Xen commercial tools, for example, SLES is fully supported by
thehypervisor. Ubuntu isn't. Makes choosing easy... 

YMMV :-)

Brent Wood

GIS/DBA consultant
NIWA
+64 (4) 4 386-0300
________________________________________
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org [pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] on behalf of David Boreham
[david_list@boreham.org]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2012 3:23 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run

On 3/3/2012 7:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> [ raised eyebrow... ]  As the person responsible for the packaging
> you're dissing, I'd be interested to know exactly why you feel that
> the Red Hat/CentOS PG packages "can never be trusted".  Certainly they
> tend to be from older release branches as a result of Red Hat's desire
> to not break applications after a RHEL branch is released, but they're
> not generally broken AFAIK.
>
>

No dissing intended. I didn't say or mean that OS-delivered PG builds
were generally broken (although I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see
that happen in some distributions, present company excluded).

I'm concerned about things like :

a) Picking a sufficiently recent version to get the benefit of
performance optimizations, new features and bug fixes.
b) Picking a sufficiently old version to reduce the risk of instability.
c) Picking a version that is compatible with the on-disk data I already
have on some set of existing production machines.
d) Deciding which point releases contain fixes that are relevant to our
deployment.

Respectfully, I don't trust you to come to the correct choice on these
issues for me every time, or even once.

I stick by my opinion that anyone who goes with the OS-bundled version
of a database server, for any sort of serious production use, is making
a mistake.












--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
--
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.