I am currently running CentOS 4.5 (which, through many Yum updates) now appears to be CentOD 4.8.
4.8 is still rather old, but I havbe lots of stuff (files and stuff installed). I would like to install Fedora but I am worried about losing all the stuff I have. I would have to back everything up, uninstall/reinstall things, etc. I am wondering whether there is some way to upgrade to Fedora from CentOS without just having to reinstall everything?
- Done.
At Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:26:08 +0000 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
I am currently running CentOS 4.5 (which, through many Yum updates) now appears to be CentOD 4.8.
4.8 is still rather old, but I havbe lots of stuff (files and stuff installed). I would like to install Fedora but I am worried about losing all the stuff I have. I would have to back everything up, uninstall/reinstall things, etc. I am wondering whether there is some way to upgrade to Fedora from CentOS without just having to reinstall everything?
You really *should* back everything up and do a fresh install of Fedora (or CentOS 5.5), then re-install your extra packages. You really don't want to upgrade in place, unless you really, really, know what you are doing and/or are willing to live with various (subtle) problems caused by possibly incompatible 'leftover' packages.
Hint: Having a separate file system for /home is a *good* thing. Having /usr/local on a separate file system also is gravey on the side... (for web servers /var/www, for mail servers /var/spool/mail, etc.).
- Done.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:26 PM, tony.chamberlain@lemko.com wrote:
I am currently running CentOS 4.5 (which, through many Yum updates) now appears to be CentOD 4.8.
4.8 is still rather old, but I havbe lots of stuff (files and stuff installed). I would like to install Fedora but I am worried about losing all the stuff I have. I would have to back everything up, uninstall/reinstall things, etc. I am wondering whether there is some way to upgrade to Fedora from CentOS without just having to reinstall everything?
- Done.
It's a bad idea to "upgrade" through major versions without doing a full reinstall. Also, going from Centos 4 to Fedora is very strange as Fedora is not meant for servers. You really should be using a Server OS (Like CentOS 5) instead of Fedora.
tony.chamberlain@lemko.com wrote:
I am currently running CentOS 4.5 (which, through many Yum updates) now appears to be CentOD 4.8.
4.8 is still rather old, but I havbe lots of stuff (files and stuff installed). I would like to install Fedora but I am worried about losing all the stuff I have. I would have to back everything up, uninstall/reinstall things, etc. I am wondering whether there is some way to upgrade to Fedora from CentOS without just having to reinstall everything?
<shameless self-promotion> I wrote an article that was published in SysAdmin, before it went under. http://24.5-cent.us/upgrading_linux.doc
And as others have said, /home, and maybe /opt, should *always* be other drives, or at least other partitions....
mark
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:29:32PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And as others have said, /home, and maybe /opt, should *always* be other drives, or at least other partitions....
Kind of makes you wonder why RH's default install is to shove everything but boot into one partition these days, doesn't it? In trying to make everything immune from the most clueless users - who might (horrors) make a partition too small - RH defaults to something other than time-honored old-school best practices. Yeah, I never accept the defaults. But I'm not the only guy who ever installs RH or CentOS in my shop, and getting everyone else up to speed on this sort of thing only annoys 'em. They tend to take it on faith that the defaults are sane. They should at least come with a warning label: "This is our default, but if you know what you're doing, you really should override."
Regards, Whit
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:29:32PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And as others have said, /home, and maybe /opt, should *always* be other drives, or at least other partitions....
Kind of makes you wonder why RH's default install is to shove everything but boot into one partition these days, doesn't it? In trying to make everything immune from the most clueless users - who might (horrors) make a partition too small - RH defaults to something other than time-honored old-school best practices. Yeah, I never accept the defaults. But I'm not
Very, dare I say it?, Windows-ish. On the other hand, for an enterprise O/S, I would sorta-kinda assume that /home was being NFS-mounted. Just about everywhere I've worked, it is. <snip> mark
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 15:17 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote:
m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:29:32PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And as others have said, /home, and maybe /opt, should *always* be other drives, or at least other partitions....
Kind of makes you wonder why RH's default install is to shove everything but boot into one partition these days, doesn't it? In trying to make everything immune from the most clueless users - who might (horrors) make a partition too small - RH defaults to something other than time-honored old-school best practices. Yeah, I never accept the defaults. But I'm not
Very, dare I say it?, Windows-ish. On the other hand, for an enterprise O/S, I would sorta-kinda assume that /home was being NFS-mounted. Just about everywhere I've worked, it is.
<snip>
Not trying to hijack but this last comment has provoked a question.
<hijack> If you have multiple CentOS machines that you regularly log onto and use, and these share a common /home/username (via NFS or other SAN mechanism) how do the various .xxxx files manage to work - aren't there potential conflicts? I have two CentOS 5.5 workstations with dual monitors (different sizes though) and another machine with only a single display - wouldn't this cause issues? Unfortunately I do not have enough experience to know what all these various . files contain - if they're only personal preferences and totally unrelated to the hardware then well and good - can someone confirm before I migrate my /home onto my main server and NFS mount it. TIA
I have multiple machine that share /home via NFS. Some have dual displays and some don't. The "normal" behavior for me is that the single-head boxes just ignore the configuration for the second display. Otherwise they all run the same. Note that these are all CentOS 5 machines that get updates applied pretty much all at the same time.
As always, YMMV. ;>
</hijack> > mark > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
At Fri, 18 Jun 2010 15:17:22 -0400 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m.roth@5-cent.us">m.roth@5-cent.us</a> wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:40c4699fc9f09a3b67e6c69636e41b14.squirrel@host290.hostmonster.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Whit Blauvelt wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:29:32PM -0400, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:m.roth@5-cent.us">m.roth@5-cent.us</a> wrote:
</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">And as others have said, /home, and maybe /opt, should *always* be otherdrives, or at least other partitions.... </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Kind of makes you wonder why RH's default install is to shove everything but boot into one partition these days, doesn't it? In trying to make everything immune from the most clueless users - who might (horrors) make a partition too small - RH defaults to something other than time-honored old-school best practices. Yeah, I never accept the defaults. But I'm not </pre>
</blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!----> Very, dare I say it?, Windows-ish. On the other hand, for an enterprise O/S, I would sorta-kinda assume that /home was being NFS-mounted. Just about everywhere I've worked, it is. <snip> </pre> </blockquote> Not trying to hijack but this last comment has provoked a question.<br> <hijack><br> If you have multiple CentOS machines that you regularly log onto and use, and these share a common /home/username (via NFS or other SAN mechanism) how do the various .xxxx files manage to work - aren't there potential conflicts?<br> I have two CentOS 5.5 workstations with dual monitors (different sizes though) and another machine with only a single display - wouldn't this cause issues? Unfortunately I do not have enough experience to know
The X server does not use .xxxx files in /home for display setup, it uses /etc/X11/xorg.conf, which will be specific to the local hardware (video card, number of monitors, etc.).
It is *presumed* that if you are in a shop with multiple desktops/workstations using NFS / automounted /home, that the base O/S on every machine is more or less the same version -- eg the admins do 'yum update' on all of the machines and thus keeping them all the same.
what all these various . files contain - if they're only personal preferences and totally unrelated to the hardware then well and good - can someone confirm before I migrate my /home onto my main server and NFS mount it. TIA<br>
So long as:
If all of the machines are kept more or less in sync WRT system software versions (which is good admin practice anyway), there should not be any problems. Some of your .xxxx files may have to test the environment (eg X11/Gnome related ones should be checking this and/or using relative placement geometries).
</hijack><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:40c4699fc9f09a3b67e6c69636e41b14.squirrel@host290.hostmonster.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> mark
CentOS mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CentOS@centos.org">CentOS@centos.org</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos">http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos</a> </pre>
</blockquote> </body> </html>
begin:vcard fn:Rob Kampen n:Kampen;Rob org:Team Torman Realty adr:;;13019 Water Point Blvd;Windermere;FL;34786;USA email;internet:rob@kampensonline.net tel;cell:407-341-3815 version:2.1 end:vcard
MIME-Version: 1.0
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 6/18/2010 2:05 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:29:32PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And as others have said, /home, and maybe /opt, should *always* be other drives, or at least other partitions....
Kind of makes you wonder why RH's default install is to shove everything but boot into one partition these days, doesn't it? In trying to make everything immune from the most clueless users - who might (horrors) make a partition too small - RH defaults to something other than time-honored old-school best practices. Yeah, I never accept the defaults. But I'm not
Very, dare I say it?, Windows-ish. On the other hand, for an enterprise O/S, I would sorta-kinda assume that /home was being NFS-mounted. Just about everywhere I've worked, it is.
<snip>
The piece I've always wanted was for the installer to be able to install on raid1 by default or even a 'broken' raid1 where you could add and sync the matching mirror later. SME server added this feature.
At Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:59:45 -0400 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:29:32PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And as others have said, /home, and maybe /opt, should *always* be other drives, or at least other partitions....
Kind of makes you wonder why RH's default install is to shove everything but boot into one partition these days, doesn't it? In trying to make everything immune from the most clueless users - who might (horrors) make a partition too small - RH defaults to something other than time-honored old-school best practices. Yeah, I never accept the defaults. But I'm not the only guy who ever installs RH or CentOS in my shop, and getting everyone else up to speed on this sort of thing only annoys 'em. They tend to take it on faith that the defaults are sane. They should at least come with a warning label: "This is our default, but if you know what you're doing, you really should override."
For certain flavors of servers, it might make sense to go for the 'one big partition' method. This might also make sense for some *desktop* installs as well (think: desktops with NFS mounted /home/*).
But yes, the default is pretty dumb. They do give you the option of doing things otherwise, unlike *some* O/Ss which don't even give you that option/choice.
Regards, Whit _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Brian Mathis -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Rob Kampen -
Robert Heller -
Ron Loftin -
tony.chamberlain＠lemko.com -
Whit Blauvelt