CTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Wesley
Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL
> I had almost given up on using Postgres for this system because under
> Solaris, it just couldn't cut it (MySQL could do the work with one CPU
> while Po
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> pg_hba.conf option on Debian called "peer" recently. We don't have such
> an option and it was never submitted to us a a patch.
>From 7usr/share/doc/postgresql/README.Debian.gz:
6. Unix socket authentication is provided (authentication type "peer").
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 06:58:18PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
: My guess on this one is that Solaris is slower for PostgreSQL because
: process switching is _much_ heavier on Solaris than other OS's. This is
: because of the way they implemented processes in SVr4. They got quite
: heavy, almost
"Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Previous to version 7.1, RHL wasn't very secure by default. This is one
> of
> > the most common complaints I hear. 7.1 can be made quite secure out of
> the
> > box without any special config -- just leave the firewall config at the
> > default of
al Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Bruce Momjian
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:28 PM
To: Trond Eivind Glomsrod
Cc: Alex Knight; Lamar Owen; Vivek Khera; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL
> > Even though it
> None of them. Run FreeBSD. It's better.
Or, it will be, once the SMP code is improved. : )
steve
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://www.postgresql.org/search.mpl
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Even though it may appear that your server is doing a lot, it's not facing
> > > the load of a highly scaled enterprise level e-commerce site, where RedHat
> > > just doesn't cut it.
> >
> > That claim is bogus. Red Hat Linux is the number one linu
> > 1) Distribution of Linux to have the largest number of "out of the box"
> > security holes. Check back and look at the security reports. Count them
if
> > you insist.
>
> And check for the number of them being Red Hat specific.
I consider things like the portmapper being enabled by default
TECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Alex Knight
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:46 PM
To: Lamar Owen
Cc: Vivek Khera; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL
On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 June 2001 16:15, Alex Knight wro
> > Even though it may appear that your server is doing a lot, it's not
facing
> > the load of a highly scaled enterprise level e-commerce site, where
RedHat
> > just doesn't cut it.
>
> That claim is bogus. Red Hat Linux is the number one linux by far in
> enterprise deployments.
Well, Microso
> Previous to version 7.1, RHL wasn't very secure by default. This is one
of
> the most common complaints I hear. 7.1 can be made quite secure out of
the
> box without any special config -- just leave the firewall config at the
> default of 'HIGH' -- of course, I've now heard complaints that it
On Wed, Jun 27, 2001 at 05:03:33PM -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
: I think most people that say they'd not run RHL either simply don't like
: Linux or just don't like Red Hat. Nothing different in this than the
: attitude of MySQL users who just simply don't like PostgreSQL. Or they've
: heard tha
Alex Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Distribution of Linux to have the largest number of "out of the box"
> security holes. Check back and look at the security reports. Count them if
> you insist.
And check for the number of them being Red Hat specific.
>
> 2) Most commercial software
Wow, I didn't realize I was going to open such a
big can of worms :-)
Thanks to everyone for putting in their "two-cents
worth."
All of the responses have definitely been helpful.
And I
agree with Adam, et al, this really doesn't belong
on this
list so lets end
this thread and move on.
Alex Knight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 27 June 2001 16:15, Alex Knight wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > > > Disagreed over here, with 4+ years of experience 24x7 on RHL since RHL
> > > > 4.1.
> >
> > > This 4+ ye
> ...This is not the same in my book, since I don't care
> to run RHL in any kind of production environment...
>
>
> What is it about RHL that various people wouldn't
> recommend running it in a production envornment?
> I don't have a contrary view, so much as I'd like to
> know what's specifical
ps. no, i don't personally use Rh.
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alex Knight" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:35 PM
> Subject:
ECTED]>
To: "Vivek Khera" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL
> On 27 Jun 2001, Vivek Khera wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "BM" == Bruce Momj
18 matches
Mail list logo
