When will CentOS 6 be released???
(Just kidding...Just wanted to let you all know that RHEL6 has been released...And yes, I know that most of you all know...) John
Yahoooo...can't wait....
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:02 PM, John Kennedy skebi69@gmail.com wrote:
When will CentOS 6 be released???
(Just kidding...Just wanted to let you all know that RHEL6 has been released...And yes, I know that most of you all know...) John
-- John Kennedy
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
on 11-10-2010 11:02 AM John Kennedy spake the following:
When will CentOS 6 be released???
(Just kidding...Just wanted to let you all know that RHEL6 has been released...And yes, I know that most of you all know...) John
So the usual 4 to 6 week (maybe 8 week) build and QA/QC process... Like anyone will wait to start hounding...
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:05:53AM -0800, Scott Silva wrote:
on 11-10-2010 11:02 AM John Kennedy spake the following:
When will CentOS 6 be released???
So the usual 4 to 6 week (maybe 8 week) build and QA/QC process... Like anyone will wait to start hounding...
Well, some will wait, or be busy hounding about CentOS 5.6--isn't there an upgrade in 4.x too? :)
Not knowing how much preparation the development team has done, I'd expect it to be longer than usual---there are some major changes.
However, I suspect we're all looking foward to it. (Save those tasked with immediately implementing it in production as soon as it's released.)
on 11-10-2010 11:13 AM Scott Robbins spake the following:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:05:53AM -0800, Scott Silva wrote:
on 11-10-2010 11:02 AM John Kennedy spake the following:
When will CentOS 6 be released???
So the usual 4 to 6 week (maybe 8 week) build and QA/QC process... Like anyone will wait to start hounding...
Well, some will wait, or be busy hounding about CentOS 5.6--isn't there an upgrade in 4.x too? :)
Not knowing how much preparation the development team has done, I'd expect it to be longer than usual---there are some major changes.
However, I suspect we're all looking foward to it. (Save those tasked with immediately implementing it in production as soon as it's released.)
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the same time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS doesn't have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple simultaneous releases.
On 10-11-10 02:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
on 11-10-2010 11:13 AM Scott Robbins spake the following:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 11:05:53AM -0800, Scott Silva wrote:
on 11-10-2010 11:02 AM John Kennedy spake the following:
When will CentOS 6 be released???
So the usual 4 to 6 week (maybe 8 week) build and QA/QC process... Like anyone will wait to start hounding...
Well, some will wait, or be busy hounding about CentOS 5.6--isn't there an upgrade in 4.x too? :)
Not knowing how much preparation the development team has done, I'd expect it to be longer than usual---there are some major changes.
However, I suspect we're all looking foward to it. (Save those tasked with immediately implementing it in production as soon as it's released.)
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the same time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS doesn't have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple simultaneous releases.
I expect that 5.6 will get the first priority, if for no other reason than it was out first, and thus probably already being worked on.
Can't wait for CentOS 6.0 though!
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:53:50PM -0500, Digimer wrote:
I expect that 5.6 will get the first priority, if for no other reason than it was out first, and thus probably already being worked on.
RHEL-5.6 is in beta, there is no final release.
John
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the
same
time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS
doesn't
have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple
simultaneous
releases.
I expect that 5.6 will get the first priority, if for no other reason than it was out first, and thus probably already being worked on.
Can't wait for CentOS 6.0 though!
I thought 5.6 was only a Beta. RHEL 6 is fully released. John
2010/11/10 Digimer linux@alteeve.com:
I expect that 5.6 will get the first priority, if for no other reason than it was out first, and thus probably already being worked on.
RHEL 5.6 isn´t released yet. Only the beta of RHEL 5.6 was released yesterday.
Best regards,
Morten
sound intrested ddownload link? ons 2010-11-10 klockan 20:58 +0100 skrev Morten P.D. Stevens:
2010/11/10 Digimer linux@alteeve.com:
I expect that 5.6 will get the first priority, if for no other reason than it was out first, and thus probably already being worked on.
RHEL 5.6 isn´t released yet. Only the beta of RHEL 5.6 was released yesterday.
Best regards,
Morten _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
sound intrested download link? ons 2010-11-10 klockan 20:58 +0100 skrev Morten P.D. Stevens:
2010/11/10 Digimer linux@alteeve.com:
I expect that 5.6 will get the first priority, if for no other reason than it was out first, and thus probably already being worked on.
RHEL 5.6 isn´t released yet. Only the beta of RHEL 5.6 was released yesterday.
Best regards,
Morten _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
hi Guys,
On 11/10/2010 07:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the same time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS doesn't have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple simultaneous releases.
Just a quick note here - the centos buildsystem, as used for centos4 and 5 has 8 builder 'threads'. So there is a fairly good potential for rapid builds.
Having said that, were not going to use those for centos6, we have a 6 node dedicated builder service that will get used for this.
Over the next few days I'll post details on how you guys can keep track of whats going on. I'll also post some details on how everyone can get involved and help.
Exciting times for sure :)
- KB
hi Guys,
On 11/10/2010 07:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the same time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS doesn't have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple simultaneous releases.
Just a quick note here - the centos buildsystem, as used for centos4 and 5 has 8 builder 'threads'. So there is a fairly good potential for rapid builds.
Having said that, were not going to use those for centos6, we have a 6 node dedicated builder service that will get used for this.
Over the next few days I'll post details on how you guys can keep track of whats going on. I'll also post some details on how everyone can get involved and help.
Exciting times for sure :)
- KB
Now, if all of us 'leeches' can stop posting about this, the actual 'ants' will be able to do actual work beyond hitting the delete key when viewing this list. ;)
Why does it seem that the immediacy for the next version increases at a greater rate than the versioning numbers? Yes, it has been painful waiting this time. My main issue has been trying to stay on upstream with PHP. And now it sounds like a double solution is on the way, 5 or 6. Sweet!
Thanks CentOS team!
Quoting Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
hi Guys,
On 11/10/2010 07:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the
same
time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS
doesn't
have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple
simultaneous
releases.
Just a quick note here - the centos buildsystem, as used for centos4 and 5 has 8 builder 'threads'. So there is a fairly good potential for rapid builds.
Having said that, were not going to use those for centos6, we have a 6 node dedicated builder service that will get used for this.
Over the next few days I'll post details on how you guys can keep track of whats going on. I'll also post some details on how everyone can get involved and help.
Exciting times for sure :)
This is very exciting. This also creates a tremendous amount of work for the CentOS team. I for one would like to thank the CentOS team for their continued efforts as well as thanking them in advance for all the work that will go into building CentOS 6. You have my utmost respect and appreciation.
Barry
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Barry Brimer wrote:
Quoting Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
hi Guys,
On 11/10/2010 07:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the
same
time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS
doesn't
have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple
simultaneous
releases.
Just a quick note here - the centos buildsystem, as used for centos4 and 5 has 8 builder 'threads'. So there is a fairly good potential for rapid builds.
Having said that, were not going to use those for centos6, we have a 6 node dedicated builder service that will get used for this.
Over the next few days I'll post details on how you guys can keep track of whats going on. I'll also post some details on how everyone can get involved and help.
Exciting times for sure :)
This is very exciting. This also creates a tremendous amount of work for the CentOS team. I for one would like to thank the CentOS team for their continued efforts as well as thanking them in advance for all the work that will go into building CentOS 6. You have my utmost respect and appreciation.
Barry _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
We should also thank RedHat for if no RedHat then no CentOS.
-Connie Sieh
Quoting Connie Sieh csieh@fnal.gov:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Barry Brimer wrote:
Quoting Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org:
hi Guys,
On 11/10/2010 07:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the
same
time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS
doesn't
have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple
simultaneous
releases.
Just a quick note here - the centos buildsystem, as used for centos4 and 5 has 8 builder 'threads'. So there is a fairly good potential for rapid builds.
Having said that, were not going to use those for centos6, we have a 6 node dedicated builder service that will get used for this.
Over the next few days I'll post details on how you guys can keep track of whats going on. I'll also post some details on how everyone can get involved and help.
Exciting times for sure :)
This is very exciting. This also creates a tremendous amount of work for
the
CentOS team. I for one would like to thank the CentOS team for their
continued
efforts as well as thanking them in advance for all the work that will go
into
building CentOS 6. You have my utmost respect and appreciation.
Barry
We should also thank RedHat for if no RedHat then no CentOS.
Absolutely. Red Hat does a tremendous amount of heavy lifting to produce RHEL, without which there would be no CentOS. Red Hat also gets paid pretty well to do so, and unless I am mistaken the CentOS team does not. In any case, I appreciate the work of Red Hat and the CentOS team.
Barry
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:57:10PM -0600, Barry Brimer wrote:
Absolutely. Red Hat does a tremendous amount of heavy lifting to produce RHEL, without which there would be no CentOS. Red Hat also gets paid pretty well to do so, and unless I am mistaken the CentOS team does not. In any case, I appreciate the work of Red Hat and the CentOS team.
Remember also that a lot of the original heavy lifting is done in Fedora, which, while sponsored by Red Hat, is very much a community project with significant work done without (direct) pay. So while you're appreciating, don't forget those folks either. :)
On 11/11/10 00:45, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:57:10PM -0600, Barry Brimer wrote:
Absolutely. Red Hat does a tremendous amount of heavy lifting to produce RHEL, without which there would be no CentOS. Red Hat also gets paid pretty well to do so, and unless I am mistaken the CentOS team does not. In any case, I appreciate the work of Red Hat and the CentOS team.
Remember also that a lot of the original heavy lifting is done in Fedora, which, while sponsored by Red Hat, is very much a community project with significant work done without (direct) pay. So while you're appreciating, don't forget those folks either. :)
Ah, but don't forget the upstream folks from Fedora, such as the Kernel guys the Gnome guys, KDE guys etc etc. :-P.
They all help make GNU/Linux distributions what they are today :-).
And yes, I too would like to thank the CentOS team and everyone else for all their hard work :-). I would help them, and contribute, but aside from money (Which I don't have at the mo :-( ) I fail to see anything I can contribute with effectively :-(.
My Fedora 12 is coming to EOL soon, so I must upgrade my Fedora, but I plan to switch to CentOS6 instead :-) Albeit EL doesn't have XFCE (Last time I checked) I can sort that out, and a few other things I can easily fix (make and build custom RPM's for my self)
Fedora 12 has become stable like no other Fedora release for me, so I hope that has been carried over into EL6 :-) I'm guessing it has. If not made better :-).
Anyhow, once again: Thanks to all the folk that make CentOS/RHEL/Linux what it is today :-)
Jake Shipton wrote:
On 11/11/10 00:45, Matthew Miller wrote: My Fedora 12 is coming to EOL soon, so I must upgrade my Fedora, but I plan to switch to CentOS6 instead :-) Albeit EL doesn't have XFCE (Last time I checked) I can sort that out, and a few other things I can easily fix (make and build custom RPM's for my self)
actually XFCE is in centos extras for C5, it might be there again for C6, in due time :-)
Thanks Karanbir , I actually want to pony up and start helping so I am looking forward to hearing more about that and how I can help...Sounds Great
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.orgwrote:
hi Guys,
On 11/10/2010 07:52 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
Last time there was only one build queue, so if 5.6 and 6 come out at the
same
time, they will have to choose which one gets attention first. CentOS
doesn't
have the multi-million dollar infrastructure to support multiple
simultaneous
releases.
Just a quick note here - the centos buildsystem, as used for centos4 and 5 has 8 builder 'threads'. So there is a fairly good potential for rapid builds.
Having said that, were not going to use those for centos6, we have a 6 node dedicated builder service that will get used for this.
Over the next few days I'll post details on how you guys can keep track of whats going on. I'll also post some details on how everyone can get involved and help.
Exciting times for sure :)
- KB
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and cloud computing?
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/
the big piece that i've been waiting for is ipv6 stateful firewalling. without that, ipv6 has been a non-starter for me.
On 11/10/2010 12:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and cloud computing?
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and cloud computing?
I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
Also which Fedora version was the basis for this?
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and cloud computing?
I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
bind-9.7.0-5.P2
To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
Also which Fedora version was the basis for this?
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-Connie Sieh
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and cloud computing?
I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
bind-9.7.0-5.P2To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
If Centos 6 is 4-6 weeks off. I can hold off my DNSSEC work for a bit. I have LOTs of other things to get done...
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:54:19PM -0600, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
What is preventing you from looking at the upstream website to determine requirements?
If Centos 6 is 4-6 weeks off. I can hold off my DNSSEC work for a bit. I have LOTs of other things to get done...
I think it's a fair bet to say it will be at least 4-6 weeks out.
John
On 11/10/2010 05:11 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 04:54:19PM -0600, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
What is preventing you from looking at the upstream website to determine requirements?
I did look and obviously all the links I followed were deadends for this piece of info. I have a history of poor success on such matters; I think it is tied into my dyslexia and my language skills :(
If Centos 6 is 4-6 weeks off. I can hold off my DNSSEC work for a bit. I have LOTs of other things to get done...
I think it's a fair bet to say it will be at least 4-6 weeks out.
Actually that is what I figured, no sooner than yearend and probably early next year. I have other things on my plate and I would just get my DNS current, which I can now do in a day and live off my secondaries for that time, build a FC13 test system to work out the DNSSEC setup, then when Centos 6 comes out, I SHOULD be able to do a relatively fast switch from Centos 5.5 and drop in the DNSSEC cruft.
My DNS server has 1Gb memory, it is just the test systems that I tend to run lean with....
John R. Dennison wrote:
I think it's a fair bet to say it will be at least 4-6 weeks out.
When it comes, will I be able to upgrade by "sudo yum update"?
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:58PM +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
John R. Dennison wrote:
I think it's a fair bet to say it will be at least 4-6 weeks out.
When it comes, will I be able to upgrade by "sudo yum update"?
You can try. :)
There is, in the RH docs, an upgrade path mentioned, however, even they don't seem to have much faith in it. Their recommendation is to use the DVD choosing the Upgrade option.
There are going to be some MAJOR changes, including a jump from 2.6.18 kernel to 2.6.30-something, changes in glibc, and so on. So while some people may successfully upgrade, I suspect that most will be doing a backup and reinstall.
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:58PM +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
When it comes, will I be able to upgrade by "sudo yum update"?
You can try. :)
Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than doing a clean install.
Steve ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Thompson E-mail: smt AT vgersoft DOT com Voyager Software LLC Web: http://www DOT vgersoft DOT com 39 Smugglers Path VSW Support: support AT vgersoft DOT com Ithaca, NY 14850 "186,300 miles per second: it's not just a good idea, it's the law" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:13:16AM -0500, Steve Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:58PM +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
When it comes, will I be able to upgrade by "sudo yum update"?
You can try. :)
Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than doing a clean install.
You're a braver man than I am.
Here's the RH link for the --hrrm, what's the opposite of faint at heart, dark of heart? Deep contrast of heart? Bright of heart? Loud of heart? (Wrong faint).
Anyway....
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installati...
2010/11/11 Steve Thompson smt@vgersoft.com:
Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than doing a clean install.
That's the point.
The cost to upgrade is probably higher than a clean installation.
It has changed so much between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
I recommend everyone a clean installation.
Best regards,
Morten
On 11/11/2010 09:23 AM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
2010/11/11 Steve Thompsonsmt@vgersoft.com:
Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than doing a clean install.
That's the point.
The cost to upgrade is probably higher than a clean installation.
It has changed so much between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
I recommend everyone a clean installation.
I think the only 'clean' upgrade I had was Centos 5.2 -> 5.3 and that happened by accident!
I have always taken the path to rsync all valuable stuff over to another box, do a clean install, then move stuff back. I have a set of instructions on 'customizing' for each of my systems to follow.
I just added a 1.5Tb USB drive on one system that I am now using for the rsync destination. I figure that when I need to update the system it is normally on, I can move it to another system...
On 11/11/2010 9:30 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than doing a clean install.
That's the point.
The cost to upgrade is probably higher than a clean installation.
It has changed so much between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
I recommend everyone a clean installation.
I think the only 'clean' upgrade I had was Centos 5.2 -> 5.3 and that happened by accident!
Errr, you should be able to 'yum update' any 5.x to any other with few surprises. Did you mean 4.2 as the starting point there?
On 11/11/2010 10:21 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 11/11/2010 9:30 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than doing a clean install.
That's the point.
The cost to upgrade is probably higher than a clean installation.
It has changed so much between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
I recommend everyone a clean installation.
I think the only 'clean' upgrade I had was Centos 5.2 -> 5.3 and that happened by accident!
Errr, you should be able to 'yum update' any 5.x to any other with few surprises. Did you mean 4.2 as the starting point there?
That was so many upgrades back that you might be right! :)
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:58PM +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
John R. Dennison wrote:
I think it's a fair bet to say it will be at least 4-6 weeks out.
When it comes, will I be able to upgrade by "sudo yum update"?
Probably a casual one off user will not want to follow this path as it is not deterministic as to the method that works AND migrates all prior applications 'in situ'
There are something north of 80 simultaneous packages for very minimal install, in the resulting transaction set from a CentOS 5 updated to current, to a locally rebuilt 6 testing candidate [from the second beta]. NOT stripping out unused leaf nodes increases the liklihood of a unsolveable dependency (more on this in a moment) even more
That is, I have attempted working forward from: 0. build a local binary archive and run a createrepo 1. a clean starting point backup 2. stripping the box down to minimal leaf nodes 3. plenty of local drive to store the transaction set packages in 4. let yum solve the transaction set [rpm5 can do this as well, but is out of scope here] 5. download all of them 6. create a MANIFEST with ls 7. take another backup to work forward from on later trials
8. try a: rpm -F `cat MANIFEST`
This fails -- perhaps due to a sequencing issue; needed scripts are dying and SElinux is in play, perhaps a non-present dependency. ... does not matter
9. fall back to the step 7 backup 10. try a: rpm -U `cat MANIFEST`
This fails as well, but differently
Disabling SElinux did not help; in trying a third time with SElinux disabled, this fails with scripts issues
Also one loses the conversion to ext4
I can take a hint ;)
I concluded that a media based upgrade (which is essentially --nodeps) and in a environment where SElinux can work, and scripts frummage may not matter [... WOULD NOT matter if script actions were idempotent, which they clearly are not] was the way to go, and not via: yum ;)
I have other fish to fry until CentOS specific media to QA becomes available ;) A hobby user doing this for recreation, or a HUGE (hundreds of chassis or instances) may be able to amortize the cost of finding a solution, but to me, it is not yet an interesting problem to spend time in advance of QA'ing 'real' CentOS content
-- Russ herrold
On Thursday, November 11, 2010 09:57:58 am Timothy Murphy wrote:
John R. Dennison wrote:
I think it's a fair bet to say it will be at least 4-6 weeks out.
When it comes, will I be able to upgrade by "sudo yum update"?
Given that the upstream sources from which CentOS 5 was originally built are Fedora Core 6 vintage, it would be like trying to go from Fedora 6 to Fedora 12+ in one fell swoop.
I don't even upgrade from one Fedora to the next (or one Debian or Ubuntu, either, as I've seen that break badly before). I keep my data on a separate partition (or multiple separate partitions in the case of servers) and do fresh reinstalls, mounting my data back in the right place once done. On my laptop, I'm still running the same /home that I ran in RedHatLinux 7 beta days....
Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and cloud computing?
I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
bind-9.7.0-5.P2To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/
/Götz
On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and cloud computing?
I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
bind-9.7.0-5.P2To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string into google to get this page!
Well that has the information I was looking for except....
It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:
# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668 -/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880 Swap: 1052248 151876 900372
So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb memory for these old boxes.
Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
> What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and > cloud computing? > > > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/
I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
bind-9.7.0-5.P2To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string into google to get this page!
Well that has the information I was looking for except....
It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:
# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668 -/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880 Swap: 1052248 151876 900372
So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb memory for these old boxes.
I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install ....'
/Götz
Is it an x86_64 install? I had a problem with Xen last year under 5.x whereby I had to increase the VM's memory footprint to 512 MB
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote: > > > >> What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and >> cloud computing? >> >> >> > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/ > > I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
bind-9.7.0-5.P2To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string into google to get this page!
Well that has the information I was looking for except....
It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:
# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668 -/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880 Swap: 1052248 151876 900372
So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb memory for these old boxes.
I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install ....'
/Götz
Am 11.11.10 17:17, schrieb Scot P. Floess:
Is it an x86_64 install? I had a problem with Xen last year under 5.x whereby I had to increase the VM's memory footprint to 512 MB
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > >> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote: >> >> >> >>> What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and >>> cloud computing? >>> >>> >>> >> http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/ >> >> > I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know? > > bind-9.7.0-5.P2
To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string into google to get this page!
Well that has the information I was looking for except....
It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:
# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668 -/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880 Swap: 1052248 151876 900372
So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb memory for these old boxes.
I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install ....'
/Götz
Yes it is an x86_64 I tried.
/götz
Yeah - try to bump up the memory to 512 MB... As I recall, that fixed my issues as well...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 11.11.10 17:17, schrieb Scot P. Floess:
Is it an x86_64 install? I had a problem with Xen last year under 5.x whereby I had to increase the VM's memory footprint to 512 MB
On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > > >> On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> >>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and >>>> cloud computing? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/ >>> >>> >> I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know? >> >> > bind-9.7.0-5.P2 > > To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at > > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/ > And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string into google to get this page!
Well that has the information I was looking for except....
It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:
# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668 -/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880 Swap: 1052248 151876 900372
So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb memory for these old boxes.
I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install ....'
/GötzYes it is an x86_64 I tried.
/götz
On 11/11/2010 10:10 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote: > > > > >> What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and >> cloud computing? >> >> >> >> > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/ > > > I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
bind-9.7.0-5.P2To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to install this on a 256Mb system for example?
Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string into google to get this page!
Well that has the information I was looking for except....
It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:
# free total used free shared buffers cached Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668 -/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880 Swap: 1052248 151876 900372
So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb memory for these old boxes.
I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install ....'
Given a comment that RHEL 6 is based on FC13, I am going to try installing FC13 on one of my 256 test systems, but I suspect it will be time to send those systems off to the recyclers.... Maybe someone will take them and put DSL or some such on them.
On 11/11/2010 10:55 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install ....'
Given a comment that RHEL 6 is based on FC13, I am going to try installing FC13 on one of my 256 test systems, but I suspect it will be time to send those systems off to the recyclers.... Maybe someone will take them and put DSL or some such on them.
Anything that small can almost certainly be replaced by one of many virtual machines running on more current hardware - if there is any reason to keep it around as a separate host at all. Unless you are testing some specific hardware functionality.
Le jeudi 11 novembre 2010 15:53:49, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb
CentOS 5 has been running fine here on an old PIII-700 with 128 MB RAM. DNS, DHCP, Apache, MySQL and NTP for home use. Only thing you have to be careful of is using the text mode installer and activate a swap partition during install. Of course, everything else is trimmed down to the bare minimum.
Cheers,
Niki
On 11/11/2010 7:53 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb memory for these old boxes.
How much time (money) do you spend waiting on installers to run, when you force them to use 100x slower memory, a.k.a. swap? What about the run time of your test application? Are you sure it never hits swap?
I obviously don't know which SFF box you have, but I just put a random Shuttle model number into crucial.com and it told me a 1 GB upgrade (512 MB matched pair) is $50. You're not going to save an hour or two of company time over the expected lifetime of these machines? Really?
On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 09:36:35PM +0600, Sergey Podushkin wrote:
Robert Moskowitz wrote:
Also which Fedora version was the basis for this?
Version of anaconda is tightly linked to Fedora version, so it's based on Fedora 13, because it use anaconda-13.
RHEL6 Anaconda was forked from Fedora 13 anaconda tree in January, 4 (?) months before F13 release.
So it's not the same as Fedora 13 anaconda.
-- Pasi
-
Barry Brimer -
Connie Sieh -
Digimer -
Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator -
Jake Shipton -
Joe Pruett -
John Hinton -
John Kennedy -
John R. Dennison -
Karanbir Singh -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Matt -
Matthew Miller -
mattias -
Morten P.D. Stevens -
Nicolas Kovacs -
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
R P Herrold -
Robert Moskowitz -
Scot P. Floess -
Scott Robbins -
Scott Silva -
Sergey Podushkin -
Steve Thompson -
Timothy Murphy -
Tom Bishop -
Warren Young