M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>
>> Right, this is why I only rely on Linux deployments using a name I
>> trust: Dell.
>>
>> Returning to reality, the idea that there are brands you can buy that
>> make all your problems go away is rather optimistic. The number of
>> "branded" servers I've seen that are just nearly or completely worthless
>> for database use is rather depressing.
>>
>
> Well, of course, they won't make *all* your problems go away. But still,
> I'd much rather have an IBM or HP or Dell server running Windows 2003 or
> RHEL or SLES than some no-name hardware running Fedora or Ubuntu.
>
If you use no-name hardware it all depends on how reliable your supplier
is. The no-name white box providers I've had experience with have always
supplied hardware that was reliable and fast. And as they were small
companies they would work with you to give you hardware that you
preferred (e.g raid cards etc).
Conversely I've found big name brand suppliers would often change
critical parts (network or raid cards) midway through shipment - leaving
you with the odd-man-out server to debug silly issues with (e.g won't
get on the network, disk array not recognized by the installation media
etc). So I'm not entirely convinced by the 'name brand is good' argument.
I'd agree that Fedora is probably not the best choice for a
deployment(!). My experience of Ubuntu has been better, however using
the LTS release might be a wise move if one wants to user this distro.
regards
Mark
