Re: Linux vs FreeBSD

On 11 Apr 2014, at 12:39, Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> wrote:

I moved this bit of the conversation up as it’s relevant to the OP:

> On 11/04/2014 13:05, Alban Hertroys wrote:
>> On 11 Apr 2014, at 8:04, Achilleas Mantzios <achill(at)matrix(dot)gatewaynet(dot)com> wrote:

>>> I don't mean to scare the OP, but FreeBSD is not for everyone.
>> And that (again) could be said about any OS. Even Windows or OS X.
>> It depends on what you intend to use it for and what prior experience, preconceptions and expectations you might have.
> Playing with words aside, going with FreeBSD is not for the average Ubuntu user.

(Words are fun!)

That was actually what I was getting at. A user coming from Ubuntu will have some preconceived ideas about how things work (because that’s how Ubuntu does things) that get in their way when moving to a different OS where they sometimes work just slightly differently.

My advice to the OP:

Install FreeBSD on a system to play around with, get a feel for how it works and whether you like it or not.
See how it performs with Postgres on different file-systems; UFS2 or ZFS - UFS is the faster of the two, but ZFS makes up for that big time in maintainability if you provide it with enough memory.
If you require locale-specific collations (native language specific sort ordering), check that it does what you expect.

If you instead put your database on FreeBSD straight away, you’ve suddenly made yourself responsible for a system that you do not know how to maintain or tune properly.

There are solutions to that of course, such as hiring someone to maintain it for you or to educate you in how to maintain it yourself (which might not be a bad idea for your current situation with Ubuntu either).

>>> Example of base system part :
>>> Recently I had to install pl-java on my FreeBSD workstation. There was a problem with libtrh, postgresql should be recompiled
>>> with explicitly setting : -lpthread in /usr/local/src/postgresql-9.3.4/src/backend/Makefile, without this the backend would simply hang
>>> at the very first invocation of a java function. This came after detailed following or email exchange of various hackers groups
>>> in both pgsql and FreeBSD lists, to describe the issue as accurately as possible, to help debug as most as possible, to talk
>>> to the right people, to give them incentive to answer back, etc.
>> It seems to me that the reason you were custom compiling Postgres in the first place was a problem with the port. I’m sure tracking down the problem wasn’t easy, but that is not really relevant to the topic. Ports break sometimes (on any OS) and it would have been sufficient to contact the port maintainer about the issue.
> No, i wasn't compiling postgresql from standard distribution because of a problem with the port.
> (although the port had the same exact behavior)
> I always run postgresql compiled by hand, since I see no reason to sacrifice my peace of mind
> for a short-lived joy going with the ports or PKGng system.
> As a matter of fact, PostgreSQL is among the few software packages that i would advice strongly
> against using ports or pkgs of any kind. Might work in Debian. Would not risk this in FreeBSD.

Although it is getting a bit specific, would you care to elaborate why you would advice strongly against using ports or packages for Postgres on FreeBSD? Because that’s a rather strong statement you’re making and so far the only argument I’ve seen is that there is no port for pl/java. I’m curious as to why you are so strongly set on custom-compiling Postgres.

BTW, isn’t the usual solution to a missing port to create your own (local) port? I can’t claim I have ever done that (never needed to), but apparently that’s the way to go about it. The obvious benefit is that it will fit in with the package management system, while you could even provide the port to others if you’d be willing to take responsibility for maintaining that port.

>> And yes, I have edited Makefiles, although the need hasn’t risen recently.
> With plain vanilla ports it is rarely needed.

True, that’s usually only necessary in the rare case that a port isn’t compiling or when you’re stubborn about not wanting certain dependencies (I know someone who used to be dead-set against gettext, for example).

>> Oh, and please try not to top-post when replying on this list.
> I did just for this message, because i did not feel appropriate to quote anything that the previous
> poster wrote.

Fair enough.

Alban Hertroys
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
cut the trees and you'll find there is no forest.