Any issues with Redhat?

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!

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 4:51 PM, MW Administrator
[email protected] 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 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”.


Greg D.
http://destiney.com/

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 17:51 -0400, MW Administrator wrote:

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.


I use Fedora for development systems and deploy on RHEL/CentOS

Apache works obviously, I’ve never used nginx. I do use mongrel_cluster.

I don’t use mysql with rails (I prefer postgresql) but I do use mysql
for other things.

It’s all good.

Craig

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 16:56 -0500, Greg D. wrote:

main difference you will find is the package management software.

My experience has been something like “rpm sucks and apt rules”.


the rules of condo living…one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.
There are good and bad things about each. Saying one sucks and another
rules is a political statement that doesn’t really help much at all.

Craig

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM, MW Administrator
[email protected] wrote:

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.

Both work fine for me.


Greg D.
http://destiney.com/

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.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:10 PM, Craig W. [email protected]
wrote:

the rules of condo living…one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor.
There are good and bad things about each. Saying one sucks and another
rules is a political statement that doesn’t really help much at all.

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.


Greg D.
http://destiney.com/

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 17:26 -0500, Greg D. 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

On Tue, 2008-07-29 at 18:15 -0400, MW Administrator wrote:

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.


I think others can give you performance citations of mysql vs.
postgresql.

I feel that the performance from postgresql is fine - I haven’t even
added any indexes yet and I have a pretty large application running on
it with a couple of tables over 100,000 records.

I trust postgresql with data…mysql, less so.

Craig

Thanks for the feedback - this helps.

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.


Roderick van Domburg
http://www.nedforce.nl

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.

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Craig W. [email protected]
wrote:

I trust postgresql with data…mysql, less so.

Especially since no one ever has corrupted data issues when using
PostgreSQL.

http://search.postgresql.org/search?m=1&q=corrupt&l=&d=&s=


Greg D.
http://destiney.com/

2008/7/30, MW Administrator [email protected]:

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 13:59 -0500, Greg D. wrote:

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Craig W. [email protected] wrote:

I trust postgresql with data…mysql, less so.

Especially since no one ever has corrupted data issues when using PostgreSQL.

http://search.postgresql.org/search?m=1&q=corrupt&l=&d=&s=


:wink: of course no one ever lost data with mysql

I don’t understand why you need to bait others with your highly
subjective opinions and in this case, obviously under informed.

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.

Personally, I think it’s an insult to consider mysql in the same league
with postgresql but it’s not without it’s uses…I use it for web mail
preferences, greylisting and other things that I can live without the
data if need be and to be honest, I’ve not had any problems with mysql
but I also relegate it to light duty.

But when the data really matters, it’s postgres.

Craig

On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Craig W. [email protected]
wrote:

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.


Greg D.
http://destiney.com/

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Craig W. [email protected]
wrote:

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.


Greg D.
http://destiney.com/

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 17:15 -0500, Greg D. wrote:

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 5:41 PM, Craig W. [email protected] wrote:

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.


gotcha…

lemme see now, rpm sucks and apt-get rules

postgresql sucks and mysql rules

we really need more of your highly relevant opinions

Craig

we really need more of your highly relevant opinions

We really need more of your highly constructive criticism on how other
people give opinions

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs