Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I wanted to know which Linux flavor is good for MySQL, in the sense in which flavor of Linux does MySQL perform best assuming MySQL to be configured similarly on all flavors.

share

migration rejected from stackoverflow.com Jul 20 at 4:51

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers. Votes, comments, and answers are locked due to the question being closed here, but it may be eligible for editing and reopening on the site where it originated.

closed as primarily opinion-based by kasperd, mdpc, Ward, womble Jul 20 at 4:51

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

    
hmm.. you can actually taste Linux? – thephpdeveloper Nov 27 '09 at 15:00
1  
Tastes like sweaty geeks? – Ben S Nov 27 '09 at 15:00
2  
Tastes like victory!! – Wesley Nov 27 '09 at 21:46

There are only likely to be two significant factors, which aren't really technically driven:

  1. Which OS are you most comfortable with administering.
  2. What versions of MySQL are available through the native package manager of each.

The former may or may not be influenced by the availability of professional services support.

share
    
You should add default services running after installation to you list. – Wienczny Nov 28 '09 at 0:55
    
I would add which file system to that list. You can get MySQL to go blisteringly fast on non journalled file systems if you don't care about data loss. – Stewart Robinson Jan 5 '10 at 14:51

That question is debatable since there are so many variants of Linux distros lying around. The best advice I can give is use a Linux distro that does not load X such as KDE/Gnome on startup as well as other unnecessary un-needed daemons as they would gobble up precious memory which could be used by mysql, Slackware (which I use myself) is one, another is Debian. More than likely a server based distro would be the one to use, but personally I found Slackware suited to my needs (have been a longtime slackware fan since it came out on 2 cds, slackware 1.2.13!)

Hope this helps, Best regards, Tom.

share
    
Most distributions can be congfigured to either not install X and friends, or to just not start them on boot. – David Mackintosh Nov 27 '09 at 15:15
1  
Oy vey... there's no such thing as Slackware 1.2.13... there was Slackware 3.0, which shipped with kernel 1.2.13 (and 1.3.18). – womble Nov 27 '09 at 18:49

What do you mean by "linux flavour"? Surely, it should not matter which particular "flavour" (distribution?) you are using, as long as it is the same architecture. It is the configuration of mysql itself, that is important. You can tweak any system settings yourself, so it doesn't matter at all.

share
    
I prefer loganberry. – RainyRat Nov 27 '09 at 17:47

Just pick a distro you're familiar with and either don't install X or uninstall X. Without X, all distros taste pretty similar, the only difference is likely to be the package manager, so pick the one you like.

share

Slackware.

share

Any flavor of linux that support: (or similar)

apt-get install mysql
share
2  
I think you mean apt-get – MDMarra Nov 27 '09 at 21:30

If you have to ask this question then you are more suitable for using ubuntu.

share

Use any sourcebased distribution like Gentoo/Exherbo/etc, compile it with your custom use and compiler flags.

share
    
Why? It is, in my opinion, much easier to rebuild the package, rather than jump through hoops while using a source-based distribution (the distribution itself being the main "hoop"). But that is, obviously, my personal, subjective opinion. I can accept the fact, that some people are more comfortable with using a source-based distribution. – shylent Nov 27 '09 at 15:10
    
Presumes the questioner knows what they are doing. – David Mackintosh Nov 27 '09 at 15:15
    
Would tend to disagree as it makes patch management / security issues more complex to deal with. Going with a standard major distributions package gives you a nice population to compare results against when something breaks. – Antitribu Nov 27 '09 at 16:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.