On Monday 03 July 2006 12:41, Alan Brown wrote: > On Sun, 2 Jul 2006, Kern Sibbald wrote: > > regression tests, requiring a power off. When it came backup, my boot > > partition was empty. I loaded the latest kernel, made 3 full backups, and > > rebooted, at which time, it died a hundred horrible deaths (horrible > > death = a line of red output on the screen when something needed in the > > boot fails), and froze. In simple terms, FC5 shot itself in the foot. > > This of course is _why_ we make backups and have rescue disks ;-) > > Kern, FC5 has been fairly stable for us here, but we've made a decision to > use (and pay support for) RHEL4 to cut down on local manpower. > > Perhaps your hardware is slightly flaky?
That is possible, but after having problems on 3 different machines that I upgraded from FC4 to FC5, I suspect that the problem is in their upgrade procedures that leaves the system in an unstable state. They have changed (or some packages such as cups have changed) the locations of some files from FC4 to FC5, and in at least one case (cups) they didn't assure that the old directory was deleted, which resulted in *lots* of errors. On my old 400MHz, i586, 256Meg ram machine, it crashed at least once a day after upgrading from FC4 to FC5. On SuSE 10.1 it has now been running 6 days with *absolutely* no problems. During the life time of FC4 (about 8 months for me), there were at least 4 times when I had to remove and reload previous versions of "critical" packages due to RH errors. In most cases, the errors were *obvious* with minimal testing. My feeling is that Fedora has put so much pressure on meeting their 6 month schedule and getting all the very latest software into it that they have seriously suffered in quality and hence stability. None of these remarks apply to the RHEL series. No distribution is ideal, but up to now, I am *much* happer with SuSE. Their graphical installer is many, many times better than anaconda in all ways, and I used to think that anaconda was pretty good. The only downside I have found for SuSE at this point is that their Yast2 package updater is *very* slow (even slower than yumex) and in some cases crashed for me. That said, it does a *much* better job of conflict resolution, telling you exactly what the conflict is and allowing you to choose how to resolve it. It works in an iterative fashion, so you get to retry resolving the conflicts if you don't get them all right. Oh, the second downside is that they have something like 4 or 5 installers (yum, Yast2, ...) and the repositories are not necessarily compatible, which means that SuSE doesn't have as many fast repositories for each method of updating (RH has only yum repositories if I remember right ...). I'm in the process of correcting this by creating a set of local SuSE yum repositories that will be mirrored every evening as I have done for a long time with Fedora. Anyway, distro choice is personal so I don't expect anyone to agree with my choice. > > > I am now mostly (about 90%) back up on SuSE 10.1. > > And I'm in the middle of migrating my home box off Suse 10.1 for various > reasons (opensuse development needs more time to get things right. I've > had no sound for 6 weeks, as a for instance...) I don't use sound, and in any case, like video cards, until all the little proprietary vendors that work so well with Microsoft learn about the importance of open source, we expect a few problems. > > > All is going well, it just takes time to get *everything* right > > (desktop, mail, bookmarks, daemons, connectivity, all the necessary > > development software, new installations of MySQL, PostgreSQL, ...) > > This brings up a question. > > I've just migrated my existing 1.36 bacula database from Mysql-MyIsam to > Mysql-InnoDB and am about to update to 1.38. > > The first thing I noticed is that InnoDB is significantly larger and the > second thing was that database queries ran about 4 times faster... If I read this right you are saying that MyISAM runs 4 times faster than InnoDB ??? I only have used MyISAM since it has been the default. > > Before redeploying the system in anger, does anyone have any hard data > about InnoDB performance vs Postgres for large-ish backup sets? There are those who will argue, but as currently programmed in Bacula, all the correctly done performance tests between MySQL-MyISAM and PostgreSQL are always 2 to 4 times faster on MySQL. One of the things I am going to work on after 1.40.0 is performance, so I will get to the bottom of this and if at all possible improve the performance for all off Bacula, and reduce any performance difference between MySQL and PostgreSQL (SQLite will remain supported, but I am not going to put any effort into it -- version 3 runs about 4 times slower than version 2). > > (small full backup sets are 80,000 files, large sets range from 800k up to > 5 million files, 4 full sets minimum in the database, daily backups and > backups are retained at least 14 months.) Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ Bacula-users mailing list Bacula-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
