On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
> FreeBSD on EC2 (Xen) is not exactly simple or stable though (and I'm a
> huge FreeBSD advocate!). The current stable way is to setup a windows
> instance, and then replace the hard drive image with a FreeBSD one,
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Greg Donald wrote:
> You know, Linux isn't your only *nix choice for server software. I've
> had much success deploying FreeBSD over the years. It has a hybrid
> package management system. You can use pkg_add to install a binary
> version of
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 1:56 PM, ydjango wrote:
> I am setting up nginex, apache, python django, mysql based application
> on EC2. I expect high web traffic and high mysql query usage. Mysql
> and web server will on seperate servers.
>
> Which linux distro should I use for
For stock web serving stuff, like what you list, we use the Amazon Linux AMI.
Amazon handles the optimization and compatibility issues and they are pretty
responsive about adding new packages to the distribution.
For more specialized applications (VoIP infrastructure, XMPP server), where
I've used Ubuntu 11.0 on an EC2 micro, using nginx and uwsgi and its
great. There is also a google group for ubuntu on ec2, with loads of
support. If you use uwsgi you have to compile it on the server. I had
a tough time using Amazons version, I don't remember why, but had no
problem using Ubuntu.
Hello all,
+1 for Amazon's own linux. So far it seems to work pretty well and Amazon
to date has been good with regular updates. They also have a pretty good
collection of packages available for install via yum.
Toodle-looo..
creecode
--
You received this message because
for me i would like to have an optimized kernel binary and build the kernel
in my running machine, and disable all driver not used by system os.
it will slim your kernel and faster booting and loading.
all precompiled binnary have bloated driver in kernel so it will match any
hardware and load
I didn't say it was "hard", but the point of Ubuntu is a standard image.
Yes, you can compile your own kernel on Ubuntu, but I doubt many people
ever have.
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Joey Espinosa wrote:
> On Ubuntu you'll never compile your own kernel. It
>
> On Ubuntu you'll never compile your own kernel. It won't be optimized
> for your system.
I beg to differ here. Compiling your own kernel isn't hard, and can be done
on any distro. Before Xen and SMP support was built-in, it was actually
pretty common to compile your own kernel, even on
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:55 AM, Thomas Guettler wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.11.2011 21:58, schrieb Charles Cossé:
> > The main difference with Ubuntu is that it's a binary distribution
> > (pre-compiled binaries for a standardized platform). I use Gentoo,
> > personally, which is a
I also agree that you should start with you are familiar with.
In my personal experience, after experimenting some. I choose the
Basic Amazon AMI, which is Centos compatible. It was what worked best
for me.
[]s
On Nov 13, 4:56 pm, ydjango wrote:
> I am setting up nginex,
Ubuntu has great cloud-init support for dealing with cloud startup scripts.
Works on most clouds: openstack, ec2, eucalyptus...
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 13, 2011, at 8:52 PM, ydjango wrote:
> I was concerned that Ubuntu being a desktop OS might have some
>
Am 13.11.2011 21:58, schrieb Charles Cossé:
> The main difference with Ubuntu is that it's a binary distribution
> (pre-compiled binaries for a standardized platform). I use Gentoo,
> personally, which is a variant of Debian with "portage" rather than
> "apt". LAMP server stuff is readily
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM, ydjango wrote:
> I was concerned that Ubuntu being a desktop OS might have some
> limitations which CENTOS or Debian being Server OS might not have.
AFAICT, there are very few differences between 'server' and 'desktop' distros:
- server
if i had to choose a linux distro, i'd go with debian. however if i
can choose whatever i want then i'd go with freebsd. we are using
freebsd on 6 web servers and debian on 2 with the same hardware
configuration freebsd is outperforming debian.
On Nov 13, 9:56 pm, ydjango
I was concerned that Ubuntu being a desktop OS might have some
limitations which CENTOS or Debian being Server OS might not have.
Based on answers so far, looks like all the distributions are quite
close and my concern about ubuntu is unfounded. If it is all matter
taste then I will go with
I don't have a recommendation on a specific distribution -- that's really a
matter of personal taste and experience. However, try to go with a
free-tier instance until you really need to upgrade. There are only certain
images that can be used with that free-tier. It's a pretty good deal! I've
used
No, Gentoo is not a variant of Debian.
I also don't think there are variants that are for "hardcore" users more
than others. If you're "hardcore", then you should be able to do things
like write your own kernel modules and perform low-level disk operations no
matter the distro.
I personally love
I would suggest that you use whatever your sysadmin (or if no sysadmin,
developer (or if it's just you, you)) are most familiar with. I assume
the packages that you are using (at least the ones you've listed) will
be in the package management systems for any of the distros that you
have
The main difference with Ubuntu is that it's a binary distribution
(pre-compiled binaries for a standardized platform). I use Gentoo,
personally, which is a variant of Debian with "portage" rather than "apt".
LAMP server stuff is readily available on all distros of Linux. If
you're hardcore
I am setting up nginex, apache, python django, mysql based application
on EC2. I expect high web traffic and high mysql query usage. Mysql
and web server will on seperate servers.
Which linux distro should I use for heavy production use - Ubuntu,
Centos or Debian?
Does it matter?
I see most
21 matches
Mail list logo