Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2)
От | Tony McC |
---|---|
Тема | Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20100115161040.66bc9d42@elena.home обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) (Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy
DB - advice? (v2)
Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) Re: New server to improve performance on our large and busy DB - advice? (v2) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:35:53 -0600 Dave Crooke <dcrooke@gmail.com> wrote: > For any given database engine, regardless of the marketing and support > stance, there is only one true "primary" enterprise OS platform that > most big mission critical sites use, and is the best supported and > most stable platform for that RDBMS. For Oracle, that's HP-UX (but 10 > years ago, it was Solaris). For PostgreSQL, it's Linux. I am interested in this response and am wondering if this is just Dave's opinion or some sort of official PostgreSQL policy. I am learning PostgreSQL by running it on FreeBSD 8.0-STABLE. So far I have found no problems and have even read a few posts that are critical of Linux's handling of fsync. I really don't want to start a Linux vs FreeBSD flame war (I like Linux and use that too, though not for database use), I am just intrigued by the claim that Linux is somehow the natural OS for running PostgreSQL. I think if Dave had said "for PostgreSQL, it's a variant of Unix" I wouldn't have been puzzled. So I suppose the question is: what is it about Linux specifically (as contrasted with other Unix-like OSes, especially Open Source ones) that makes it particularly suitable for running PostgreSQL? Best, Tony
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: