[CentOS] Virtualisation

[Ross S. W. Walker]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: centos-bounces at centos.org 
> [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Harris
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 1:24 PM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Virtualisation
> 
> On Thu, Mar 01, 2007 at 01:03:42PM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Harris
> 
> > > Because I don't want to play "patch catchup" when FC6 is no longer
> > > supported or have to rebuild to FC10 at some later point.  I 
> 
> > Yes, patch catch can be a pain, but even with CentOS 4.4 I 
> still play
> > patch catch, as well as Windows, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD....
> 
> Umm, regular patching isn't what I meant.  When a product is no longer
> supported (I specifically mentioned that) the onus is now on 
> me to track
> all the components and recompile as necessary.  Very soon the 
> OS becomes
> hard to maintain since a lot of packages become replaced by non-RPM
> equivalents.  I'd much rather "yum -d 0 check-update"  in a 
> nightly cron
> job to let me know that upstream has released a new version ;-)  Yes,
> 
> I acknowledge I have farmed out my risk to an "untrusted third party",
> but that's part of risk management; my evaluation is that 
> tracking RedHat
> announcements and CentOS updates over the next 'n' years is safer than
> having a product unpatched when it goes out of support.

Risk management? Is this a home network or a business network?

> > How long did you have your existing configuration running before you
> > came to the conclusion you need to blow it away for a new one?
> 
> My existing solution is well overdue for replacement; I only kept it
> so long because of hotswap IDE problems with the 2.6 kernel.  The new
> system is going to use USB drives instead for ofsite storage.
> 
> > Doubt you even had it for a year. Biggest thing you can do for
> 
> Umm.  Your should doubt your doubts :-)

OK, my bad you are currently on FC2 so you've been using Fedora Core
for a while now, but no longer get updates.

> My main workstation (also needs a rebuild, but that one will be a
> recent FC build because too many programs assume bleeding edge code
> versions already installed) is 2.5 years old.  The server in question
> is approaching 3 years old.  Neither are supported.  Both have known
> security issues.  My test box was rebuilt August last year 
> (VMware testing
> on CentOS 4.4).  I rebuilt my linode from FC2 to Centos 4.4 
> last month.

I tell you support for the 2.6.9 kernel with software that has kernel
drivers is starting to get weaker and weaker. I would wait to jump to
a 2.6.18 or 2.6.20+ kernel next so your setup stays as current for
the longest time possible.

> > yourself is to give yourself an honest evaluation on your actual
> > needs.
> 
> I've been doing this sort of thing professionally for 17 
> years.  I've been
> using Linux since the boot+root 0.11 combo disks.  I think I know my
> needs :-)

I'm talking more about personal needs vs. business. I too have been at
this a long time and know that often I will romanticize of turning my
home network into a mini version of Google...

> Infrastucture servers should be stable and not need to be rebuilt with
> a new OS just because it's more than a year old.  CentOS provides that
> stability.  Fedora doesn't.

Well then, sounds like your mind is made up already, why ask?

-Ross

______________________________________________________________________
This e-mail, and any attachments thereto, is intended only for use by
the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged
and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this e-mail, and any attachments thereto,
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error,
please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the
original and any copy or printout thereof.