In message <373858E9.B19D28B@stripped>, Sasha Pachev writes:
> efrazier@stripped wrote:
>> REALLY not meaning to start any arguments, but I was wondering if
>> there is a general consensus about which distribution of Linux
>> seems to get along best with mySQL in terms of dependability. I was
>> just wondering after the recent post about the Red Hat problem. I
>> use Slackware and don't seem to have any problems. Again just
>> looking for opinions.
I have worked with Yggdrasil, but only shortly because they put in
bugs on purpose to seel support. Then SLS, Slackware and Redhat 4.2
and nowadays 5.2.
I am going to upgrade to 6.2 once it comes out. The .0 are usually
not stable because of the new features (such as the new kernel, new
c-lib etc). .1 fixes most mistakes and .2 is usually very nice.
I hear very good things about SUSE and many like Debian.
In the end it doesn't make any difference.
>> What do you think the IDEAL system should be for a mySQL server
>> that focuses on the ability to have a large number of connections/
>> high traffic but fairly low bandwidth, like no BIG selects and so
>> on? How about the real UNIXs?
The distribution has NOTHING to do with that.
The distribution only packages the programs. It's the kernel that you
might have to tune and that is done the same way for all
> I do not think it really matters. The problem posting had to do most
> likely with a misconfigured virtual server, and it could probably be
> very easily fixed with a set of chmod commands. Linux is Linux
> however you p ackage it. I am rarely completely satisfied with
> default installation of any distribution and will want to bring in a
> couple of packages and change some defaults anyway, which I think is
> the case for most sysadmins.
I prefer to keep as close to the standard as possible so the upgrades
are easiest. But of course one never manages :-)-O