Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
PostgreSQL 11 works more efficiently in debian or redhat. Accordingly, I will choose a server and plan training. What are the advantages and disadvantages. Which operating system does the Postgres committee like?
There is no PostgreSQL committee. There is core, but they don't determine which operating systems are supported.
From the documentation (you probably read that):
A platform (that is, a CPU architecture and operating system combination) is considered supported by the PostgreSQL development community if the code contains provisions to work on that platform and it has recently been verified to build and pass its regression tests on that platform. Currently, most testing of platform compatibility is done automatically by test machines in the PostgreSQL Build Farm. If you are interested in using PostgreSQL on a platform that is not represented in the build farm, but on which the code works or can be made to work, you are strongly encouraged to set up a build farm member machine so that continued compatibility can be assured.
In general, PostgreSQL can be expected to work on these CPU architectures: x86, x86_64, IA64, PowerPC, PowerPC 64, S/390, S/390x, Sparc, Sparc 64, ARM, MIPS, MIPSEL, and PA-RISC. Code support exists for M68K, M32R, and VAX, but these architectures are not known to have been tested recently. It is often possible to build on an unsupported CPU type by configuring with --disable-spinlocks, but performance will be poor.
PostgreSQL can be expected to work on these operating systems: Linux (all recent distributions), Windows (Win2000 SP4 and later), FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, macOS, AIX, HP/UX, and Solaris. Other Unix-like systems may also work but are not currently being tested. In most cases, all CPU architectures supported by a given operating system will work.
The majority of hackers use Linux, but there are people who develop on FreeBSD, MacOS or Windows.
If you know that PostgreSQL works most efficiently on certain Linux distributions, you know more than I do.
When choosing an operating system for PostgreSQL, I would proceed like this:
List the operating systems you are familiar with (or for which your organization has skilled administrators).
Exclude all operating systems for which there is not more than one animal in the buildfarm.
Exclude Windows.
Then pick any of these.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I have a cluster of PostgreSQL nodes using streaming replication and running on RHEL 7. I plan to add new nodes running on RHEL 8, still using the same PostgreSQL version (12.7). Is mixing OS versions in a cluster a problem?
In general, streaming replication only works between the same OS and OS version.
While replicating between RHEL 7 and RHEL 8 might technically work, you might run into sever problems, e.g. because of different locale data which can lead to incorrect query results on the standby server.
I would not risk this. You should keep all servers at the same OS versions and patch level.
Logical replication on the other hand can be used to replicate between different operating systems (e.g. even from Linux to Windows). But that will require more setup and isn't really suitable if you want to replicate many databases that contain many schemas.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed last year.
Improve this question
I have a FreeBSD 12.1-RELEASE server and a CentOS 7 server. Both run on amd64.
I would like to set up a cluster file system, that runs on both platforms well. It should have CentOS 7 packages and FreeBSD packages. The solutions should be open-source software and "free of use".
After a little research, I found the following, but nontheless I always encountered drawbacks:
MooseFS3: Works on FreeBSD and CentOS, has packages for both, but only the MooseFS3 Pro version, which is commercial, has the functionality of real cluster functionality such as the possibility of mounting the file system from several nodes. Also I had locking problems with files that where access by my dovecot imap server daemon, when I run dovecot from the file system.
GlusterFS: Seems to work well, but there are no packages for the most current version of 8.x for FreeBSD. FreeBSD provides only a port for GlusterFS 3.x as of today. Different versions of GlusterFS can not operate together.
Ceph: Is very complex to configure, and I couldn't execute all of the steps of the official FreeBSD documentation for it, since the tool ceph-disk is deprecated in favor of ceph-volume. With Ceph-volume, though, I could not get it running with my zfs pool on FreeBSD, since the plugin for zfs for ceph-volume seemed to have some Linux code in it when it was ported to FreeBSD or similiar, so it might only run with ZFSOnLinux on Linux itsself.
OCFS2: I don't have much experience with that one, but its releases seem a bit outdated.
Lustre: No packages for FreeBSD and no acurate and up-to-date documentation how to set it up on a recent FreeBSD system
BeeGFS (Fraunhofer): No packages for FreeBSD, only for Linux
Hadoop MapR filesystem: Has a use case more for BigData storage than for a UNIX cluster filesystem, I don't know if it has FreeBSD packages.
So I don't find a good solution for a Cluster filesystem that runs on both FreeBSD and CentOS Linux. Even I'm planning to migrate the CentOS server to Fedora Server, so it should run there as well.
Anyone who can recommend me a recent compatible cluster file system that I could use on both FreeBSD and CentOS/Fedora Server and that allows real cluster file system features like replication and HA?
Or is there currently no cluster filesystem that fulfills my needs and I have to migrate the two machines running the same OS?
Thank you in advance.
Best regards,
rforberger
MooseFS3: Works on FreeBSD and CentOS, has packages for both, but only the MooseFS3 Pro version, which is commercial, has the functionality of real cluster functionality such as the possibility of mounting the file system from several nodes.
This is not true, you can mount MooseFS Community from as many nodes as you wish.
Glusterfs may be worth to try, it is based on fuse, which is available on FreeBSD, so you need only to build the userspace part, which may not be impossible, if it is not available for you OS version. On Linux it is definitely the simplest one to set up, since it comes packaged with most of the distros.
Lustre, despite supporting replicated directories, is more of a parallel filesystem oriented to HPC and high I/O performances, than a clustered filesystem oriented at redundancy, so I would not even consider it if redundancy is your purpose.
I have no experience with the other ones.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it possible to create and run Intel SGX enclaves within a virtualised environment such as Virtualbox or Docker?
It is possible to run and start enclaves from virtual machines. However, the virtualization software must be able to support the SGX instruction set. VirtualBox and Docker still don't support SGX, but KVM and Xen both have patches available to support SGX.
For more details see here: https://01.org/intel-software-guard-extensions/sgx-virtualization
Surely SGX applications can run in virtualised environment, because running Intel SGX just require Ring 3 privilege. But your motherboard needs to be changed to enable it, and there should be some modifications need to be made in the Hypervisor or OS. Currently, it seems Intel SGX is still not yet supported in traditional virtualised environments like XEN/KVM in the mainstream, but there are some preliminary SGX virtualization patches from Intel.
In addition, there are some research papers talking about SGX applications running on virtualised environments:
SCONE is a docker-compatible secure container. You may check their website. There is a OSDI'16 paper describing SCONE.
Haven provides shielded execution , that protects the confidentiality and integrity of programs/data from the platform on which it runs. It is based on Windows HyperV and Libos. There is an OSDI'14 paper describing Haven.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I am new to Perl,I want to do a project assigned to me in Perl.
Should I use Perl in Windows or Linux?
I am not able to conclude the significant advantages or disadvantages of Perl on a particular OS.
Perl is ridiculously portable. By and large, the ports act pretty similar on different machines. For the most part, you won't notice a difference between running on Windows and running on Linux (or BSD, or Mac OS X, or any number of older platforms: Plan 9, Amiga, VAX, Mac OS Classic, etc.).
That is, for the most part. There are a few weird things that will bite you occasionally (especially the Platforms and Function Implementation sections). Given a choice, I would pick Perl on Linux. That's partly because I like Linux more than Windows, partly because many of Perl's core modules and functions are inspired by POSIX, and partly because many of the core developers use Linux (the perlport document is written largely as "this is what you'll see different if you run on something other than UNIX.").
There are some modules which are better supported under Linux than Windows, but the vast majority work well in both. In particular, the DWIMperl distribution for Windows is amazing. It's based on Strawberry Perl which includes the Padre IDE, a modern version of Perl, database drivers, Moose, most of Task::Kensho, Dancer, and many, many other commonly used modules, along with tools such as cpanm and a C compiler, so installing new modules is a breeze. Given that modern Perl development involves lots of CPAN modules, it's great to have a batteries-included distribution.
So really, I'd suggest using whatever operating system you're most comfortable with. The days when Perl was much better supported under Linux compared to Windows are mostly behind us.
I said to go for Linux OS only because in all Linux machine are have pre-installed Perl modules.So better to Linux machine only.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
I want to switch my OS from Windows XP to but as a software developer I am worried about that will I able to install/run the development tool successfully [Software like: Visual Studio, Sql Server, PHP ... other related tool].
Which OS will be the best subsitute for the Microsoft Windows XP/7, from a developer point of view?
This really depends what platform you want to develop the software for. If you are writing Windows programs, Microsoft makes great developer tools which of course run on Windows. The effective tools to develop Mac software are (no surprise) available on Macs. So there's really only a choice if you're targeting cross-platform or Linux. You can use virtual machines to construct whatever testing environments you need, so the main choice is your preference.
Since you sound like you are interested in experimenting with new environments, I would suggest you try Linux. I primarily use Emacs with GNU Global and GDB in Linux to do all my development, and I have benefited from other tools like strace and Valgrind. Eclipse is also available, and I hear it's nice. Since you're used to MS tools, I'll warn you that the open-source stuff isn't as polished or as integrated as MS's stuff appears to be, but it's certainly capable.
Well, if you need Microsoft-based software, such as Visual Studio and SQL Server, the best choice of OS will probably be a Microsoft one...
After that, you might want to run some Virtual Machines, for PHP / Linux development.