Just popped back on the list because I was curious about this. I've read the information about virtualization and other new features. I'm just wondering (as someone who installed CentOS 2 years ago and basically hasn't thought much about it my OS other than using it since then) if any piece of it except for virtualization got updated significantly enough to consider an upgrade. My machine right now is running great. Everything is just how I like it. Enhanced desktop search would be nice (but then I thought Beagle was Mono and thus not included). As would a nicer version of Gnome.
But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. Anyone know? I'm getting that upgrade itch that comes from back in the days when I upgraded SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Fedora, etc. every 6 months. Having a machine running solid for 2 years is weird for me and I'm getting that itch, but I'm wondering if there isn't any solid reason to bother with it.
Preston
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sun, Mar 25, 2007 at 10:31:39AM -0700, Preston Crawford wrote:
Just popped back on the list because I was curious about this. I've read the information about virtualization and other new features. I'm just wondering (as someone who installed CentOS 2 years ago and basically hasn't thought much about it my OS other than using it since then) if any piece of it except for virtualization got updated significantly enough to consider an upgrade. My machine right now is running great. Everything is just how I like it. Enhanced desktop search would be nice (but then I thought Beagle was Mono and thus not included). As would a nicer version of Gnome.
But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. Anyone know? I'm getting that upgrade itch that comes from back in the days when I upgraded SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Fedora, etc. every 6 months. Having a machine running solid for 2 years is weird for me and I'm getting that itch, but I'm wondering if there isn't any solid reason to bother with it.
Well, I can mention some of the things that I found worth notice.
- - Openoffice 2 - - Exim 4.63 (even thou anyone seriously into exim setups will tell you that 4.64 is MUCH MUCH better, due to the acl variable changes, which means I'll still be rolling my own packages) - - kernel 2.6.18 - - gnupg 1.4.5 - - bind 9.3 - - bluez 3.7 - - ghostscript 8 - - qt 4 is avaliable (qt4 package family) - - samba 2.0.23c (this is VERY important, specially due to an excel related fix. Today I have to roll my own packages) - - spamassassin 3.1 - - tetex 3 - - tomcat (version 5) - - wpa_supplicant - - xorg-x11 7.1 - - yum 3
Some things I'm still missing: - - Mutt is still 1.4 (I have rolled my own 1.5 packages for personal use) - - Firefox is still not version 2 - - openoffice is still not 2.2
Things that might give you some extra work (not bad, just somewhat different, but usually a good thing): - - gcc 4 - - glibc 2.5 - - apache 2.2.3 - - mysql 5 - - postgresql 8.1 - - php 5
There are other changes as well, of course, but these are the ones I think are worth noticing (at least for me).
Of course, I have before me at least 3 weeks of testing and adapting procedures before I start using CentOS 5 in prodution around here, but the simple fact that I'll be able to stop rolling custom packages for most software is enough to make me happy. Specially samba (PITA).
Best Regards,
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
--- John Summerfield debian@herakles.homelinux.org wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
- samba 2.0.23c
??
--
Cheers John
-- spambait 1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa@coco.merseine.nu
Please do not reply off-list _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
when i saw that i thought i was seeing things, glad someone else mentioned about that and now i know i am not a madman after all. :-)
Steven
"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows or better'. So I installed Linux."
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 06:37:16AM +0800, John Summerfield wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
- samba 2.0.23c
??
2 .. 3 ... 2 ... 3 ... 2 ... 3 :)
3.0.23c :)
[]s
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
Preston Crawford wrote:
Just popped back on the list because I was curious about this. I've read the information about virtualization and other new features. I'm just wondering (as someone who installed CentOS 2 years ago and basically hasn't thought much about it my OS other than using it since then) if any piece of it except for virtualization got updated significantly enough to consider an upgrade. My machine right now is running great. Everything is just how I like it. Enhanced desktop search would be nice (but then I thought Beagle was Mono and thus not included). As would a nicer version of Gnome.
But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. Anyone know?
Not for those happy with what they've got.
Preston Crawford wrote:
But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. Anyone know?
Not for those happy with what they've got.
Thanks. I'll probably stick with 4, then. CentOS's (and thus the "upstream provider") support cycle has spoiled my wife, once used to the machine being reinstalled every six months. I was talking about maybe going to SATA and using that as an excuse to do a smooth upgrade (install to the SATA drive and keep my old install on the IDE drives and slowly move config and files over) and she said she liked it the way it was. Enterprise software means even at home, the support cycle is appreciated. The wife likes it how it is. So it stays. :)
Preston
On 3/25/07, Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
I was talking about maybe going to SATA and using that as an excuse to do a smooth upgrade (install to the SATA drive and keep my old install on the IDE drives and slowly move config and files over) and she said she liked it the way it was.
I typically buy a new drive, install the newer OS to that, and set up a vmware instance pointed at the raw disks with the old install on it, so I can boot up the old system at the same time as the new one if necessary. Often I get a newer/faster CPU at the same time, so the old system still works about as well as it ever did even under virtualization (sometimes it even gets faster).
I'm looking forward to finding out whether Xen makes this possible in CentOS 5 without VMware.
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 3/25/07, Preston Crawford me@prestoncrawford.com wrote:
I was talking about maybe going to SATA and using that as an excuse to do a smooth upgrade (install to the SATA drive and keep my old install on the IDE drives and slowly move config and files over) and she said she liked it the way it was.
I typically buy a new drive, install the newer OS to that, and set up a vmware instance pointed at the raw disks with the old install on it, so I can boot up the old system at the same time as the new one if necessary. Often I get a newer/faster CPU at the same time, so the old system still works about as well as it ever did even under virtualization (sometimes it even gets faster).
I'm looking forward to finding out whether Xen makes this possible in CentOS 5 without VMware.
It does. You might need a xenified kernel, but those are possible. You will need real RAM.
I typically buy a new drive, install the newer OS to that, and set up a vmware instance pointed at the raw disks with the old install on it, so I can boot up the old system at the same time as the new one if necessary. Often I get a newer/faster CPU at the same time, so the old system still works about as well as it ever did even under virtualization (sometimes it even gets faster).
I'm looking forward to finding out whether Xen makes this possible in CentOS 5 without VMware.
i think i read that rhel4u5 will have xen in it as well. i can't recall where i saw it. might have been someone getting confused between u5 and rhel5...
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 07:26 -0700, Joe Pruett wrote:
I'm looking forward to finding out whether Xen makes this possible in CentOS 5 without VMware.
i think i read that rhel4u5 will have xen in it as well. i can't recall where i saw it. might have been someone getting confused between u5 and rhel5...
It's not the full Xen - just a xenified kernel that will allow CentOS 4.5 to run seamlessly as a domU on CentOS 5. Red Hat did this for RHEL 4.5 to make it easier for companies to move to RHEL 5.
I'm going to do the same thing. Update to CentOS 4.5, and then change my Fedora Core 6 dom0 to CentOS 5. Once the CentOS 4.5 domUs are running well, I can start moving them to CentOS 5 domUs (If I think it's necessary)
Regards,
Ranbir
On 3/26/07, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu m3freak@thesandhufamily.ca wrote:
It's not the full Xen - just a xenified kernel that will allow CentOS 4.5 to run seamlessly as a domU on CentOS 5.
Which version of Xen is in RH5 then? I read that Xen 3.0 can run unmodified linux kernels ... is a modified 4.5 kernel *required* or just better-performing?
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 3/26/07, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu m3freak@thesandhufamily.ca wrote:
It's not the full Xen - just a xenified kernel that will allow CentOS 4.5 to run seamlessly as a domU on CentOS 5.
Which version of Xen is in RH5 then? I read that Xen 3.0 can run unmodified linux kernels ... is a modified 4.5 kernel *required* or just better-performing?
Unmodified kernels only in newer CPUs. I don't have one - I've just got to HT in mu second-hand boxes - so I need the modified kernel.
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 10:51 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 3/26/07, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu m3freak@thesandhufamily.ca wrote:
It's not the full Xen - just a xenified kernel that will allow CentOS 4.5 to run seamlessly as a domU on CentOS 5.
Which version of Xen is in RH5 then? I read that Xen 3.0 can run unmodified linux kernels ... is a modified 4.5 kernel *required* or just better-performing?
I think the CentOS 4.5 domUs will have to be paravirtualized, and CentOS 5 domUs can be either paravirtualized or fully virtualized. But, don't take my word for it.
Regards,
Ranbir
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-26 at 10:51 -0700, Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 3/26/07, Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu m3freak@thesandhufamily.ca wrote:
It's not the full Xen - just a xenified kernel that will allow CentOS 4.5 to run seamlessly as a domU on CentOS 5.
Which version of Xen is in RH5 then? I read that Xen 3.0 can run unmodified linux kernels ... is a modified 4.5 kernel *required* or just better-performing?
I think the CentOS 4.5 domUs will have to be paravirtualized, and CentOS 5 domUs can be either paravirtualized or fully virtualized. But, don't take my word for it.
I won't. The modified kernels are only required for paravirtualised guests. I'm hoping they will work for the host too:-)
Thanks. I'll probably stick with 4, then. CentOS's (and thus the "upstream provider") support cycle has spoiled my wife, once used to the machine being reinstalled every six months. I was talking about maybe going to SATA and using that as an excuse to do a smooth upgrade (install to the SATA drive and keep my old install on the IDE drives and slowly move config and files over) and she said she liked it the way it was. Enterprise software means even at home, the support cycle is appreciated. The wife likes it how it is. So it stays. :) Preston
Preston,
She is telling you to get *another* *new* machine (toy) for yourself and leave hers alone
;->
- rh
-- Robert - Abba Communications http://www.abbacomm.net/
Preston Crawford wrote:
Thanks. I'll probably stick with 4, then. CentOS's (and thus the "upstream provider") support cycle has spoiled my wife, once used to the machine being reinstalled every six months. I was talking about maybe going to SATA and using that as an excuse to do a smooth upgrade (install to the SATA drive and keep my old install on the IDE drives and slowly move config and files over) and she said she liked it the way it was. Enterprise software means even at home, the support cycle is appreciated. The wife likes it how it is. So it stays. :)
Egads, is nothing sacred? Next thing you know, she'll insist you put the toilet seat back down and replace your copy of Dr. Dobbs Journal with Good Housekeeping. :)
I'm going to leave my machines at 4.4 for a while and see how things shake out with 5.
Cheers,
One nice thing in new CentOS would be perhaps growisofs version 7, which is much better in my configuration (actually I took source RPM from Fedora Core 6 and recompiled on CentOS 4.4) - it has double buffering giving consistent recording speed and even supports setting recording speed for DVD+R(W), something not possible in version 6 of growisofs.
Wojtek
test, sorry
Wojtek.Pilorz a écrit :
One nice thing in new CentOS would be perhaps growisofs version 7, which is much better in my configuration (actually I took source RPM from Fedora Core 6 and recompiled on CentOS 4.4) - it has double buffering giving consistent recording speed and even supports setting recording speed for DVD+R(W), something not possible in version 6 of growisofs.
Wojtek
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Wojtek.Pilorz wrote:
One nice thing in new CentOS would be perhaps growisofs version 7, which is much better in my configuration (actually I took source RPM from Fedora Core 6 and recompiled on CentOS 4.4) - it has double buffering giving consistent recording speed and even supports setting recording speed for DVD+R(W), something not possible in version 6 of growisofs.
I could've sworn CentOS has 5.4.something.
I was sort-of forced to do that; I have a Pioneer DVD burner which was not finalising properly. The problem's fixed, it seems, in 6.x so I grabbed the latest src.rpm to hand and built it.
Mercifully, building it proved trivial.
But I'm just not sure if the jump is big enough to make it worth it. Anyone know? I'm getting that upgrade itch that comes from back in the days when I upgraded SuSE, Mandrake, Red Hat, Fedora, etc. every 6 months. Having a machine running solid for 2 years is weird for me and I'm getting that itch, but I'm wondering if there isn't any solid reason to bother with it.
If your server/s are running solid, there is zero reason to upgrade to a beta. Don't tamper with something that's working flawlessly.
Only reason for me to upgrade is newer versions of Apache, PHP and MySQL. I could use some of the features in PHP5. But not right now. I'll wait six months for the suckers... err users, to iron out the distro bugs, then I might consider it.
A MUCH newer iSCSI initiator and kernel that works well with it :)
(Infortrend iSCSI box that gave me quite some issues under CentOS 4.4, under 4.92 it popped right up)
-
Bart Schaefer -
chrism＠imntv.com -
DamianS -
Joe Pruett -
John Summerfield -
Kanwar Ranbir Sandhu -
Miark -
olivier.taylor -
Per Kristiansen -
Preston Crawford -
R Lists06 -
Rodrigo Barbosa -
Steven Vishoot -
Wojtek.Pilorz