Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:11:48PM +, Richard Jones wrote: > Matt S Trout wrote: > >That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat. > > > > > Dead Rat == CentOS 5? Anything that came out of Red Hat, basically :) I'm not a fan. -- Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project? Technical Directorhttp://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/ Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform? http://chainsawblues.vox.com/http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
Matt S Trout wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:11:48PM +, Richard Jones wrote: >> Matt S Trout wrote: >>> That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat. >>> >>> >> Dead Rat == CentOS 5? > > Anything that came out of Red Hat, basically :) > > I'm not a fan. > Really? I hadn't noticed. Try to speak out more next time. :-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:39:38AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > While I mostly agree with Matt's take on unix/linux issues -- I will > give my support to Cent/RH here. It is true, they have had some missteps > with perl in the past. Those tend get resolved fairly quickly. The perl > speed issue listed above is fixed in current patches. Is it fuck. It's now a 2* hit rather than a 30* hit but the brain-damage is still there, at least according to Jon Schutz's last benchmark of a couple weeks back. -- Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project? Technical Directorhttp://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/ Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform? http://chainsawblues.vox.com/http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
Matt S Trout wrote: That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat. Dead Rat == CentOS 5? I simply don't consider RH distros a deployment platform you'd choose unless mandated to use them, and prefer to build my own perl if I have to. CentOS 5's vendor perl will show a 2* performance hit due to their inability to maintain a perl package. Just Don't. OK, thanks - I'll stick with 6.06 for now. -- Richard Jones ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 11:43:33AM +1030, Jon Schutz wrote: > Personally I would not consider Ubuntu suitable as a production server > platform as it is too close to the bleading edge. Because 6.06 is the long-term supported release it's been rather more conservative. As I've already said, I don't consider the non-LTS releases suitable either, but we deployed 6.06 when Debian stable was still 3.0 and -way- too behind the times for our tastes. I suspect our next revision of our platform will be to Debian 4 if nothing better comes along in the mean time. -- Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project? Technical Directorhttp://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/ Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform? http://chainsawblues.vox.com/http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:16:54AM +, Richard Jones wrote: > > Peter Edwards wrote: > > >Centos 5 == Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. > > >For production quality, you can expect it to be pretty stable and I have > > >corporate customers running it successfully. It's one of our development > > >platforms. > > >However, note mst's comments about the broken Perl on it. I found that > > >quite > > >shocking considering it's supposed to be a premier Linux hosting platform. > > >As usual, compiling your own perl and Apache and providing your own > > >PERL5LIB > > >dir per live application area is a sane way of going about delivering > > >standardised live applications you can roll out and support. > > > > > > > Possibly a bit OT now, but as I'm about to set up another production > > server and was going to use CentOS 5, I'm a bit concerned. Matt > > mentioned fstab and init, but not as far as I can see Perl - in what way > > is Perl broken on CentOS 5? > > That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat. > > I simply don't consider RH distros a deployment platform you'd choose unless > mandated to use them, and prefer to build my own perl if I have to. > > CentOS 5's vendor perl will show a 2* performance hit due to their inability > to maintain a perl package. > > Just Don't. While I mostly agree with Matt's take on unix/linux issues -- I will give my support to Cent/RH here. It is true, they have had some missteps with perl in the past. Those tend get resolved fairly quickly. The perl speed issue listed above is fixed in current patches. RH/Cent has some very undeniable advantages over ubuntu/suse/flavor of the day. Some advantages likely to make a difference in corporations are tight partnerships with dell and other server vendors (read tightly coupled hardware support and updates), tight relationships with commercial software vendors (pick 5 software packages that run on linux from different vendors chances are the common supported platform will be RH and therefore CentOS). It is also not uncommon to build your own kit for webserver/perl/mysql etc for production servers no matter what distro you choose -- and run that in parallel to the distro's build. It makes sense to control the bits that run your applications. In general, when it comes to linux distros, my belief is that issues you have with distros can generally be pinpointed down to the administrator (myself included). I have used all of the big 6 Linux distros and found things I like and dislike about all of them. They are all acceptable for hosting perl web apps. -Wade ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 11:16 +, Richard Jones wrote: > Peter Edwards wrote: > > Centos 5 == Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. > > For production quality, you can expect it to be pretty stable and I have > > corporate customers running it successfully. It's one of our development > > platforms. > > However, note mst's comments about the broken Perl on it. I found that quite > > shocking considering it's supposed to be a premier Linux hosting platform. > > As usual, compiling your own perl and Apache and providing your own PERL5LIB > > dir per live application area is a sane way of going about delivering > > standardised live applications you can roll out and support. > > > > Possibly a bit OT now, but as I'm about to set up another production > server and was going to use CentOS 5, I'm a bit concerned. Matt > mentioned fstab and init, but not as far as I can see Perl - in what way > is Perl broken on CentOS 5? We have some tens of production servers running CentOS 4/5, and apart from the CentOS 5 perl issue (which was quite nasty) have been satisfied with it as a production platform. Its key asset is that you don't get any surprises, like version upgrades that have incompatible configuration files so your services stop working. Personally I would not consider Ubuntu suitable as a production server platform as it is too close to the bleading edge. However, really any O/S version could be used in production if you turn off automatic updates and you're prepared to manage and test every upgraded and security patched package on an individual basis. Whichever platform you choose for production (presumably in an Internet environment), getting your firewalling right, keeping your footprint small, keeping your security patches up to date and knowing your configuration baseline are probably the main criteria to ensure a reliable software subsystem. -- Jon ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
On Tue, Nov 13, 2007 at 11:16:54AM +, Richard Jones wrote: > Peter Edwards wrote: > >Centos 5 == Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. > >For production quality, you can expect it to be pretty stable and I have > >corporate customers running it successfully. It's one of our development > >platforms. > >However, note mst's comments about the broken Perl on it. I found that > >quite > >shocking considering it's supposed to be a premier Linux hosting platform. > >As usual, compiling your own perl and Apache and providing your own > >PERL5LIB > >dir per live application area is a sane way of going about delivering > >standardised live applications you can roll out and support. > > > > Possibly a bit OT now, but as I'm about to set up another production > server and was going to use CentOS 5, I'm a bit concerned. Matt > mentioned fstab and init, but not as far as I can see Perl - in what way > is Perl broken on CentOS 5? That's because I was bitching about later Ubuntus, not Dead Rat. I simply don't consider RH distros a deployment platform you'd choose unless mandated to use them, and prefer to build my own perl if I have to. CentOS 5's vendor perl will show a 2* performance hit due to their inability to maintain a perl package. Just Don't. -- Matt S Trout Need help with your Catalyst or DBIx::Class project? Technical Directorhttp://www.shadowcat.co.uk/catalyst/ Shadowcat Systems Ltd. Want a managed development or deployment platform? http://chainsawblues.vox.com/http://www.shadowcat.co.uk/servers/ ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
Re: [Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
On 13 Nov 2007, at 11:16, Richard Jones wrote: Possibly a bit OT now, but as I'm about to set up another production server and was going to use CentOS 5, I'm a bit concerned. Matt mentioned fstab and init, but not as far as I can see Perl - in what way is Perl broken on CentOS 5? Some bodged backports make certain operations stupidly slow. For an example see the (Fedora) bug report 253728 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253728 As of a couple of weeks back this was definitely in RHEL5/Centos5. Bearing in mind the timing of the recent RHEL5.1 release (no Centos 5.1 as yet), I really expect that its in there too - and I am not convinced the RH guys have given pushing this fix out any priority at all... Nigel. -- [ Nigel Metheringham [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] [ - Comments in this message are my own and not ITO opinion/policy - ] ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
[Catalyst] Re: Ubuntu / Catalyst
Peter Edwards wrote: Centos 5 == Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5. For production quality, you can expect it to be pretty stable and I have corporate customers running it successfully. It's one of our development platforms. However, note mst's comments about the broken Perl on it. I found that quite shocking considering it's supposed to be a premier Linux hosting platform. As usual, compiling your own perl and Apache and providing your own PERL5LIB dir per live application area is a sane way of going about delivering standardised live applications you can roll out and support. Possibly a bit OT now, but as I'm about to set up another production server and was going to use CentOS 5, I'm a bit concerned. Matt mentioned fstab and init, but not as far as I can see Perl - in what way is Perl broken on CentOS 5? -- Richard Jones ___ List: Catalyst@lists.scsys.co.uk Listinfo: http://lists.scsys.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
