Thanks to all
Sent from Samsung mobile
Chris Angelico wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> Note that Ubuntu also comes in a GUI free server edition as well. I
>> can definitely state that Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Server edition is rock
>> solid stable for the hardware I've
Hmm...
I also use 64 bit Fedora 16, on an AMD quad core at home, and on a dual
Xeon quad cores at work.
For a desktop environment, I would recommend xfce for serious work over
GNOME 3. However, GNOME 3 is fine if you prefer fashion over
functionality. I have 25 virtual desktops, and make ful
Thanks for all of the help. I will be doing some testing in VM's this
week before loading on my other server.
Michael Gould
Intermodal Software Solutions, LLC
904-226-0978
Original Message
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] what Linux to run
From: r d
Date: Mon, March 05, 2012 5:
>>
>> If we move to Linux, what is the preferred Linux for running Postgres
>> on. This machine would be dedicated to the database only.=20
>>
>> I'd like a recommendation for both a GUI hosted version and a non-GUI
>> version. I haven't used Linux in the past but did spend several year s
>> in a
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/Ce
On 04/03/12 09:49, John R Pierce wrote:
On 03/03/12 2:55 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
My knowledge of Debian is via friend's (an extremely competent and
experienced Unix guy who got me into Linux & who still runs Debian)
comments and what I've noticed on the web. For a Desktop development
machin
On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 14:15 -0700, David Boreham wrote:
>
> We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed
> on the postgresql.org web site.
Those RPMs will probably be a part of CentOS Testing repository soon. I
and Karanbir had a chat about it at FOSDEM this year.
--
D
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> I thought I was clear that my experiences thus far had not been
> RHEL/CentOS/SL because I tended to compile my own on such platforms. I have
> however seen Fedora do that, and it is a caution worth noting going forward.
>
> The question is w
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 03/03/12 7:01 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
>> On the negative, I have seen a yum-based upgrade between versions happily
>> upgrade the binaries from 8.4.x to 9.0.x
>>
>
> I haven't.
>
>
I thought I was clear that my experiences thus far
On 03/03/12 7:01 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
On the negative, I have seen a yum-based upgrade between versions
happily upgrade the binaries from 8.4.x to 9.0.x
I haven't.
the PG 9.x yum packages not only have a different name, they install
into different directories. here I have dead stock
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:23 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> 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". C
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> 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.
I would qualify this.
If you accept the OS-bundled version, you are relinquishing
r
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM, David Boreham wrote:
> 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".
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
David Boreham writes:
> Long thread - figured may as well toss in some data:
> We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed on
> the postgresql.org web site.
> We've found that the PG shipped as part of the OS can never be trusted
> for production use, so we don't care
Long thread - figured may as well toss in some data:
We use CentOS 5 and 6 and install PG from the yum repository detailed on
the postgresql.org web site.
We've found that the PG shipped as part of the OS can never be trusted
for production use, so we don't care what version ships with the OS
On 03/03/12 2:55 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
My knowledge of Debian is via friend's (an extremely competent and
experienced Unix guy who got me into Linux & who still runs Debian)
comments and what I've noticed on the web. For a Desktop development
machine, I currently prefer Fedora, but for a s
On 03/03/12 23:33, Leif Biberg Kristensen wrote:
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower :
I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I
would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the
Debian community is more serious about quality than Can
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:56 AM, Chris Travers wrote:
> Two quick notes:
>
> First, you really want a long-term support release. Your main options here
> are Debian and spinoffs (Ubuntu LTS, for example) and RedHat Enterprise and
> spinoffs (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc). If you know one of thes
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 4:36 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Leif Biberg Kristensen
> wrote:
>> My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4.
>> In order to install 9.1...
>> This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one?
>
> W
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Leif Biberg Kristensen
wrote:
>
> My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4.
> In order to install 9.1, I added this line to /etc/apt/sources.list:
>
> deb http://ftp.debian.org/debian unstable main contrib non-free
>
> Then I did a
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 12.34.27 skrev Raymond O'Donnell :
> You can get Postgres 9.1 from backports.debian.org:
>
> deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main
Ah, sweet, thank you!
regards, Leif
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
T
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Leif Biberg Kristensen
wrote:
> My current gripe is this: The «stable» version of Postgres on Debian is 8.4.
> In order to install 9.1...
> This seems a rather roundabout way, is there a better one?
We use Debian at work, and I went for the other favorite way of
ge
On 03/03/2012 10:33, Leif Biberg Kristensen wrote:
> Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower :
>
>> I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I
>> would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the
>> Debian community is more serious about quali
Two quick notes:
First, you really want a long-term support release. Your main options here
are Debian and spinoffs (Ubuntu LTS, for example) and RedHat Enterprise and
spinoffs (CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc). If you know one of these groups
go with it.
Second, GUI's usually come separate from
Lørdag 3. mars 2012 01.43.29 skrev Gavin Flower :
> I think if you are going to select a member of the Debian family, I
> would strongly recommend Debian itself. I have the impression that the
> Debian community is more serious about quality than Canonical (the
> company behind Ubuntu).
I haven'
On 02/03/12 01:25, Ivan Voras wrote:
On 28/02/2012 18:17, Rich Shepard wrote:
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, mgo...@isstrucksoftware.net wrote:
If we move to Linux, what is the preferred Linux for running Postgres
on. This machine would be dedicated to the database only.
Michael,
There is no 'prefe
Ivan Voras wrote:
On 28/02/2012 17:57, mgo...@isstrucksoftware.net wrote:
Our application runs on Windows, however we have been told that we can
pick any OS to run our server on. I'm thinking Linux because from
everything I've read, it appears to be a better on performance and there
are other f
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
>
> One interesting thing I've discovered recently is that there is a HUGE
> difference in performance between CentOS 6.0 and Ubuntu Server 10.04
> (LTS) in at least the memory allocator and possibly also multithreading
> libraries (in favour of Ce
On 28/02/2012 17:57, mgo...@isstrucksoftware.net wrote:
> Our application runs on Windows, however we have been told that we can
> pick any OS to run our server on. I'm thinking Linux because from
> everything I've read, it appears to be a better on performance and there
> are other features like
On 28/02/2012 18:17, Rich Shepard wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, mgo...@isstrucksoftware.net wrote:
>
>> If we move to Linux, what is the preferred Linux for running Postgres
>> on. This machine would be dedicated to the database only.
>
> Michael,
>
> There is no 'preferred' linux distribution
Le mercredi 29 février 2012 à 11:31 -0500, Gary Chambers a écrit :
> > Note that Ubuntu also comes in a GUI free server edition as well. I can
> > definitely state that Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Server edition is rock solid stable
>
> +1
>
> I've been running 10.04 LTS Server for over three years (on a D
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Gary Chambers wrote:
>> I've been running 10.04 LTS Server for over three years (on a Dell
>> PowerEdge
>> 2850) using Martin Pitt's PostgreSQL 9.1 PPA.
>
>
> I apologize. That's over two years.
Darnit! I was hoping to borrow your time machine too. :)
--
Sen
I've been running 10.04 LTS Server for over three years (on a Dell PowerEdge
2850) using Martin Pitt's PostgreSQL 9.1 PPA.
I apologize. That's over two years.
--
G.
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresq
Note that Ubuntu also comes in a GUI free server edition as well. I can
definitely state that Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Server edition is rock solid stable
+1
I've been running 10.04 LTS Server for over three years (on a Dell PowerEdge
2850) using Martin Pitt's PostgreSQL 9.1 PPA.
--
Gary Chambers
--
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> Note that Ubuntu also comes in a GUI free server edition as well. I
> can definitely state that Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Server edition is rock
> solid stable for the hardware I've run it on (48 core AMD and 40 core
> Intel machines with LSI, Arecam
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Rich Shepard wrote:
> The Ubuntus boot directly into the GUI and that tends to be more
> comfortable for newly defenestrated users. If you like that, but want the
> more open and readily-available equivalent, install Debian. The ubuntus are
> derivatives of debi
>>
>> On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, haman...@t-online.de wrote:
>>
>> > one thing you might want to consider is system lifetime: some distro may
>> > be set up so that you more or less have to reinstall within 2 years, if
>> > you plan to use update service - others may be longer. Now, fast
>> > developme
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, haman...@t-online.de wrote:
one thing you might want to consider is system lifetime: some distro may
be set up so that you more or less have to reinstall within 2 years, if
you plan to use update service - others may be longer. Now, fast
development is great AND allows you t
>>
>> If we move to Linux, what is the preferred Linux for running Postgres
>> on. This machine would be dedicated to the database only.=20
>>
>> I'd like a recommendation for both a GUI hosted version and a non-GUI
>> version. I haven't used Linux in the past but did spend several year s
>> in
On Feb 28, 2012, at 9:16 AM, Adam Cornett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, wrote:
> Our application runs on Windows, however we have been told that we can
> pick any OS to run our server on. I'm thinking Linux because from
> everything I've read, it appears to be a better on performan
On Tue, 28 Feb 2012, mgo...@isstrucksoftware.net wrote:
If we move to Linux, what is the preferred Linux for running Postgres on.
This machine would be dedicated to the database only.
Michael,
There is no 'preferred' linux distribution; the flame wars on this topic
died out a decade or so a
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM, wrote:
> Our application runs on Windows, however we have been told that we can
> pick any OS to run our server on. I'm thinking Linux because from
> everything I've read, it appears to be a better on performance and there
> are other features like tablespaces w
Our application runs on Windows, however we have been told that we can
pick any OS to run our server on. I'm thinking Linux because from
everything I've read, it appears to be a better on performance and there
are other features like tablespaces which we could take advantage of.
On our hosted sol
44 matches
Mail list logo
