Hi -
We're considering using Redhat as our platform due to the support our host can offer. We're curious of opinions regarding it. Such any issues running Apache, Ngix, Mongrel, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, etc...
We currently use Ubuntu on our dev machines and dev host. Seems like there wouldn't be much of a difference but not sure - hence this post.
Thanks!
Versions aside, most of a Linux distro is the same as any other. The main difference you will find is the package management software.
My experience has been something like "rpm sucks and apt rules".
Hi -
We're considering using Redhat as our platform due to the support our host can offer. We're curious of opinions regarding it. Such any issues running Apache, Ngix, Mongrel, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, etc...
We currently use Ubuntu on our dev machines and dev host. Seems like there wouldn't be much of a difference but not sure - hence this post.
> We're considering using Redhat as our platform due to the support our > host can offer. We're curious of opinions regarding it. Such any > issues running Apache, Ngix, Mongrel, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, etc... > > We currently use Ubuntu on our dev machines and dev host. Seems like > there wouldn't be much of a difference but not sure - hence this post.
Versions aside, most of a Linux distro is the same as any other. The main difference you will find is the package management software.
My experience has been something like "rpm sucks and apt rules".
Thanks for the feedback. Seems if we had issues with the packages we could always build from source - we do that on Ubuntu when all else fails anyhow.
Regarding Postgres - you get pretty good performance from it? We use MySQL but seems using Postgres wouldn't matter since Rails is db agnostic.
We had considered checking it out after hearing good reviews.
Thanks again.
Craig White wrote:
Both work fine for me.
No, it was an opinion based on years of experience using both RedHat and Debian. I will remind you he said "We're curious of opinions regarding it" and I returned exactly that, my experience-based, personal opinions.
Your post, on the other hand, seems to be the rather useless one, as you didn't even give an opinion, just some blather about ceilings and floors.
Thanks for the feedback. Seems if we had issues with the packages we could always build from source - we do that on Ubuntu when all else fails anyhow.
Regarding Postgres - you get pretty good performance from it? We use MySQL but seems using Postgres wouldn't matter since Rails is db agnostic.
We had considered checking it out after hearing good reviews.
Thanks again.
Your post, on the other hand, seems to be the rather useless one, as you didn't even give an opinion, just some blather about ceilings and floors.
Thanks for the feedback - this helps.
Craig White wrote:
Thanks for the feedback - this helps.
Craig White wrote:
Your post, on the other hand, seems to be the rather useless one, as you didn’t even give an opinion, just some blather about ceilings and
floors.
probably because I’m adverse to using the list to post my political views.
Craig
MW Administrator wrote:
We're considering using Redhat as our platform due to the support our host can offer. We're curious of opinions regarding it. Such any issues running Apache, Ngix, Mongrel, Ruby, Rails, MySQL, etc...
We usually use CentOS for our Rails development and deployment and go with RHEL when the client longs for the enterprise support.
It's a great platform for running Rails applications -- robust and without forced upgrades. The flip side of that is that some versions lag behind. Noticably, you'll get Ruby 1.8.5, RubyGems 0.9 and a bunch of older gems out of the box (RMagick comes to mind).
We usually stick with the packaged Ruby 1.8.5 but then maintain RubyGems manually. Depending on our specific technical requirements we sometimes manually track Ruby 1.8.6 and newer versions of ImageMagick and PostgreSQL too.
MySQL is at version 5.0 so you should be safe there.
I run both Fedora Core 5 and Ubuntu 7.1.0 on two different machines and they both work fine.
1. I mostly compile from sources and install in the standard directories, i.e., /usr/local/. If you rely on package managers, e.g., aptitude, apt, yum, rpm, then you are bound to get different versions and different directory structures. Standardize on your install structure and stay with it across the distros. This means that you have to download the tarballs that you want and hand compile. Well worth the effort in my opinion.
2. I mostly use Yum install which roughly parallels apt-get installations. Rpm is at a much lower level and should only be used if yum does not work. Having said that, try to install ruby, rubygems, etc. from sources rather than the repositories and keep them the same across both your Redhat and Ubuntu systems. You will find that they work the same (to best of my knowledge). The more important things are the supporting libraries for compilation and/or operation, e.g., you need readline to support irb etc. The dev libraries need to be installed to support compilation processes. They have some variations across these systems and need to be researched. I did.
3. There was a thread in this forum where later versions of Fedora 8 (I believe) was causing memory leaks in ruby for someone. I think he downgraded to Fedora 6. I have stayed with Fedora 5 since I don't need the latest and greatest. Command line works the same across all these versions.
4. I had used Fedora, CentOS, and Redhat extensively before I came to Ubuntu. It is just a matter of getting used to. Once again, if you keep compiling from sources and keep the versions identical across the linux distros, you will not notice any difference (at least I haven't which has bothered me to the point where I can remember it).
5. Regarding desktop, I keep the default Gnome and really have not noticed much of a difference except that Ubuntu is more polished. Again, this is very subjective and I must admit, I am more of a command line person than GUI user so these differences do not matter much to me.
Hope this helps.
Bharat
Excellent feedback - thanks for taking the time.
Bharat wrote:
Especially since no one ever has corrupted data issues when using PostgreSQL.
> I trust postgresql with data...mysql, less so.
Especially since no one ever has corrupted data issues when using PostgreSQL.
I don't understand why you need to bait others with your highly subjective opinions and in this case, obviously under informed.
698 pages of PostgreSQL listserv archive search results for the word "corrupt" is not subjective. I don't own the site, nor are these my list serve posts.
And seeing how I know about them, I seem to be quite informed. PostgreSQL has corruption issues like any other database I've ever used.
Ignoring of course that there are more than 2x the number of hits returned from a google search for 'mysql data corruption' than 'postgresql data corruption' and the fact that mysql is notorious for data corruption, that would make sense.
That's exactly my point, all databases have corruption issues, including the great and mighty PostgreSQL, or perhaps "especially" is a more appropriate word here.
Personally, I think it's an insult to consider mysql in the same league with postgresql
I like it just fine, but I'm not going to be so naive to think my data can't be corrupted just because I'm using PostgreSQL.
But when the data really matters, it's postgres.
When the data really matters, I make backups.
We were asked for opinions and I gave one. Get over it.
> probably because I'm adverse to using the list to post my political > views.
We were asked for opinions and I gave one. Get over it.
we really need more of your highly relevant opinions
We really need more of your highly constructive criticism on how other people give opinions
Keep up to date with Rails on Twitter and This Week in Rails
Policies: Conduct, License, Maintenance, Security, Trademarks