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 Postgres took up even more CPU and required *both* CPUs
PROTECTED]
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 Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
BM Here is a press release
...This is not the same in my book, since I don't care
to run RHL in any kind of production environment...
snip
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 specifically
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+ years 24/7 experience
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:
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 made
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
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 is
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, Microsoft has
:[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 wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun
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 Red Hat
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 linux by far in
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
-
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 may appear that your
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 'HIGH' -- of
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,
16 matches
Mail list logo
