Since 5.5 is now out from Red Hat and most likely our amazing CentOS team has already jumped on that, is there any word on Release 6? IIRC it's already a year out of date (base was supposed to be Fedora 10), so I have to wonder.
I didn't see anything jump out at me on the Red Hat site, so - anyone?
Thanks.
mhr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
thus Paul Stuffins spake:
Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
Nope. But it's all over town that Red Hat might conduct one or more public (!) beta tests of RHEL within the next several weeks (mind Red Hat Summit in June).
Timo
thus Paul Stuffins spake:
Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
Nope. But it's all over town that Red Hat might conduct one or more public (!) beta tests of RHEL within the next several weeks (mind Red Hat Summit in June).
I didn't think they had, hence no CentOS6.
I have actually just been reading a thread about RHEL6 on LinuxQuestions.org and they are saying that it is looking like a release of RHEL6 will turn up at the end of this year as RH are hammering through bugs that have, apparently, been in Fedora since Fedora 7.
-----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Paul Stuffins Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:49 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Release 6?
thus Paul Stuffins spake:
Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
Nope. But it's all over town that Red Hat might conduct one or more public (!) beta tests of RHEL within the next several weeks (mind Red Hat Summit in June).
I didn't think they had, hence no CentOS6.
I have actually just been reading a thread about RHEL6 on LinuxQuestions.org and they are saying that it is looking like a release of RHEL6 will turn up at the end of this year as RH are hammering through bugs that have, apparently, been in Fedora since Fedora 7. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
I better get my RHCE taken soon then:)
On 3/31/2010 12:48 PM, Paul Stuffins wrote:
thus Paul Stuffins spake:
Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
Nope. But it's all over town that Red Hat might conduct one or more public (!) beta tests of RHEL within the next several weeks (mind Red Hat Summit in June).
I didn't think they had, hence no CentOS6.
I have actually just been reading a thread about RHEL6 on LinuxQuestions.org and they are saying that it is looking like a release of RHEL6 will turn up at the end of this year as RH are hammering through bugs that have, apparently, been in Fedora since Fedora 7.
It's about time someone did that. I completely gave up on Fedora after version 6 and unsubscribed from the mail list because they were only interested in changing things and adding features, not making anything work. Has it become usable again?
At Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:22:05 +0100 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux Mint on my desk and laptop's.
*I* gave up on Fedora Core after FC2: I installed it on a dual Pentium Pro 200 box with a pair of 2940 SCSI controllers and after everything installed properly, discovered two problems: the middle button on the serial mouse did not work and cdrecord --scan told me that the only thing on either SCSI controller was the SCSI scanner, despite the fact that the system (boot) disk was one one. I promptly install WBL 3.0, and never looked back. *ALL* of *MY* machines run CentOS: server, desktop, and laptop.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux Mint on my desk and laptop's. _____________________________________
I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very well (definite improvement from F10 and previous). I also use it for my netbook (with a few tweaks) and everything is fine.. No fires or explosions to report of :)
And to add something useless to the thread.. as far as I've heard, RHEL6 is going to be a while. The only things I have heard is that it will be based on F11/F12 (I think).
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Tait Clarridge wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux Mint on my desk and laptop's. _____________________________________
I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very well (definite improvement from F10 and previous). I also use it for my netbook (with a few tweaks) and everything is fine.. No fires or explosions to report of :)
And to add something useless to the thread.. as far as I've heard, RHEL6 is going to be a while. The only things I have heard is that it will be based on F11/F12 (I think).
RHEL6 installer was branched from F13 installer in January 2010.
-- Pasi
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux Mint on my desk and laptop's.
I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very well (definite improvement from F10 and previous). I also use it for my netbook (with a few tweaks) and everything is fine.. No fires or explosions to report of :)
I'll chime in. Fedora 12 seems well behaved running as a (64-bit) VM running on a CentOS 5 host.
We use F12 headless, so I can't comment on desktop issues, but I really like the deltarpm stuff. It really cuts down on bandwidth requirements on a frequently updated distro like Fedora.
On 3/31/2010 1:58 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux Mint on my desk and laptop's.
I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very well (definite improvement from F10 and previous). I also use it for my netbook (with a few tweaks) and everything is fine.. No fires or explosions to report of :)
I'll chime in. Fedora 12 seems well behaved running as a (64-bit) VM running on a CentOS 5 host.
We use F12 headless, so I can't comment on desktop issues, but I really like the deltarpm stuff. It really cuts down on bandwidth requirements on a frequently updated distro like Fedora.
A lot of the work after Fedora 6 seemed to revolve around making single-user desktop type access more convenient at the expense of more general purpose server concepts - and making it boot quickly which isn't a big priority on boxes that run all the time. And some things even when not technically broken were annoying, like if a user logs in at the console keyboard it would kill the audio output being controlled by a remote user.
A lot of the work after Fedora 6 seemed to revolve around making single-user desktop type access more convenient at the expense of more general purpose server concepts - and making it boot quickly which isn't a big priority on boxes that run all the time. And some things even when not technically broken were annoying, like if a user logs in at the console keyboard it would kill the audio output being controlled by a remote user.
Well all valid, I always laugh when I see posts in Fedora list about people setting up Fedora as servers at work.
I can't imagine such a practice. I use at home only on my desktop for the bleeding edge support, but given the public approach to its model, its happened before that people have pushed bad updates that broke things badly. Just one of many reasons...
On 3/31/2010 2:39 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
A lot of the work after Fedora 6 seemed to revolve around making single-user desktop type access more convenient at the expense of more general purpose server concepts - and making it boot quickly which isn't a big priority on boxes that run all the time. And some things even when not technically broken were annoying, like if a user logs in at the console keyboard it would kill the audio output being controlled by a remote user.
Well all valid, I always laugh when I see posts in Fedora list about people setting up Fedora as servers at work.
I can't imagine such a practice. I use at home only on my desktop for the bleeding edge support, but given the public approach to its model, its happened before that people have pushed bad updates that broke things badly. Just one of many reasons...
Up through F6, I liked having one or a few copies of fedora to test things, knowing that they'd be similar to the next release of RHEL/Centos and put up with the fast updates and breakage. But then the philosophy seemed to change in terms of wanting to break backwards compatibility on purpose to deliver improvements. Maybe, years later, it will finally happen. Or maybe the unix design was right in the first place. It will be interesting to see how the enterprise flavor shakes out.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Joseph L. Casale jcasale@activenetwerx.com wrote:
Well all valid, I always laugh when I see posts in Fedora list about people setting up Fedora as servers at work.
Well, I love to make people laugh so I'll chime in here.
I do use Fedora for some hosting, and I'm very happy with it for that purpose. The reason I like it better is that the packages are more up-to-date. Not bleeding edge, but more current. I'd rather let Fedora manage my mediaWiki installation rather than deal with the updates myself.
The trick is that you have to accept that you'll be reinstalling it in a year. With puppet and a little discipline, that's not a big deal. Spin up a new VM, get things running, and switch over DNS.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Joseph L. Casale <jcasale@activenetwerx.com
wrote:
Well all valid, I always laugh when I see posts in Fedora list about people setting up Fedora as servers at work.
I can't imagine such a practice. I use at home only on my desktop for the bleeding edge support, but given the public approach to its model, its happened before that people have pushed bad updates that broke things badly. Just one of many reasons...
I run Fedora on servers at home without any issues.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:58:25AM -0700, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux Mint on my desk and laptop's.
I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very well (definite improvement from F10 and previous). I also use it for my netbook (with a few tweaks) and everything is fine.. No fires or explosions to report of :)
I'll chime in. Fedora 12 seems well behaved running as a (64-bit) VM running on a CentOS 5 host.
We use F12 headless, so I can't comment on desktop issues, but I really like the deltarpm stuff. It really cuts down on bandwidth requirements on a frequently updated distro like Fedora.
Yeah.. and with a fast internet connection it takes LONGER to build up the new rpms from the deltarpms compared to just downloading the new rpms as full packages :)
-- Pasi
On 3/31/2010 2:19 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:58:25AM -0700, Paul Heinlein wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux Mint on my desk and laptop's.
I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very well (definite improvement from F10 and previous). I also use it for my netbook (with a few tweaks) and everything is fine.. No fires or explosions to report of :)
I'll chime in. Fedora 12 seems well behaved running as a (64-bit) VM running on a CentOS 5 host.
We use F12 headless, so I can't comment on desktop issues, but I really like the deltarpm stuff. It really cuts down on bandwidth requirements on a frequently updated distro like Fedora.
Yeah.. and with a fast internet connection it takes LONGER to build up the new rpms from the deltarpms compared to just downloading the new rpms as full packages :)
It doesn't sound very cache-friendly either... The Centos mirrorlists aren't either, but I quit caring when the mirrors got fast enough that it didn't matter that you end up pulling a copy of every rpm from every mirror in the list.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
We use F12 headless, so I can't comment on desktop issues, but I really like the deltarpm stuff. It really cuts down on bandwidth requirements on a frequently updated distro like Fedora.
Yeah.. and with a fast internet connection it takes LONGER to build up the new rpms from the deltarpms compared to just downloading the new rpms as full packages :)
I wondered about that. Have you done some testing with and without the presto plugin enabled?
On 03/31/2010 09:19 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote: ...
Yeah.. and with a fast internet connection it takes LONGER to build up the new rpms from the deltarpms compared to just downloading the new rpms as full packages :)
I've noticed that too on my eee 901 with a slow flash disk.
yum remove yum-presto
solved that problem. (Fedora 12; a bit OT for a CentOS list).
Mogens
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:14 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
It's about time someone did that. I completely gave up on Fedora after version 6 and unsubscribed from the mail list because they were only interested in changing things and adding features, not making anything work. Has it become usable again?
Guess it depends on what your definition of usable is. It has been working for me since the first version of Fedora was released. Can't say it's 100% problem free but then nothing is.
YMMV, of course.
Paul Stuffins a écrit :
Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
Here's some fresh info:
http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3873916/Red-Hat-Enterprise-Linux...
Since 5.5 is now out from Red Hat and most likely our amazing CentOS team has already jumped on that, is there any word on Release 6? IIRC it's already a year out of date (base was supposed to be Fedora 10), so I have to wonder.
I vaguely recollect that RH mentioned pushing out the (total) life cycles of a release from 5 to 7 years, or 7 to 10 or something like that.
Their lifecycle info is here:
http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
But there's no mention of any changes on there...
Spiro Harvey wrote:
Since 5.5 is now out from Red Hat and most likely our amazing CentOS team has already jumped on that, is there any word on Release 6? IIRC it's already a year out of date (base was supposed to be Fedora 10), so I have to wonder.
I vaguely recollect that RH mentioned pushing out the (total) life cycles of a release from 5 to 7 years, or 7 to 10 or something like that.
Their lifecycle info is here:
http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
But there's no mention of any changes on there...
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years. Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
Anyway, it's nice to see so many people have dumped Fedora for pretty much the same reason as I have, more than a year ago in favour of CentOS. And this was after almost two years of discontent with Fedora.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
Actually, I still have an RHEL 2.1 system in production. My excuse is that it is an Itanium I box (an HP I2000), and this is the latest version that will run on it. And it's working fine (but it is really slow). The bloody thing just won't die! It's going to have an accident, pretty soon, pretty soon.
Steve
Steve Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
Actually, I still have an RHEL 2.1 system in production. My excuse is that it is an Itanium I box (an HP I2000), and this is the latest version that will run on it. And it's working fine (but it is really slow). The bloody thing just won't die! It's going to have an accident, pretty soon, pretty soon.
Steve _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Oooooops.... :D
But it's still nice to hear RHEL 2.1 is a resilient bastard - I guess this is what really adds value to the enterprise product.
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Steve Thompson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
Actually, I still have an RHEL 2.1 system in production. My excuse is that it is an Itanium I box (an HP I2000), and this is the latest version that will run on it. And it's working fine (but it is really slow). The bloody thing just won't die! It's going to have an accident, pretty soon, pretty soon.
If the accident accidentally involves a circular saw, a YouTube link would be really cool! :-)
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:47:56 -0700 (PDT) Paul Heinlein heinlein@madboa.com wrote:
If the accident accidentally involves a circular saw, a YouTube link would be really cool! :-)
You know you use Reddit too much when you look for an upvote button.
;)
Greetings,
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Steve Thompson smt@vgersoft.com wrote:
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
It's going to have an accident, pretty soon, pretty soon.
Steve
aah!... does anybody smell a BOFH here ;)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/
Regards,
Rajagopal
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Milos Blazevic milos.blazevic@sbb.rs wrote:
Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years. Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
:)
We have some RHEL2 systems still in production.
Anyway, it's nice to see so many people have dumped Fedora for pretty much the same reason as I have, more than a year ago in favour of CentOS. And this was after almost two years of discontent with Fedora.
Fedora works fine for my play laptop. I have it setup so that critical data is backed up to my fileserver so even if I lose the drive rebuilding just takes 20 minutes or so and I'm back where I left off. I don't use it on any infrastructure stuff at my house, but it's definitely easier to get things like networking, eye candy demo window managers, graphics software, etc.. going under Fedora.
On 3/31/2010 4:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote:
Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years. Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
When something works right there's not much need to change it. I still have an RH 7.3 box running that's had a couple of 4-year uptime spans (had to move it once). And several Centos 3.x's.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 06:18:17PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
When something works right there's not much need to change it. I still have an RH 7.3 box running that's had a couple of 4-year uptime spans
I hope there's very little internet exposure on that box; even ssh has had remote exploits since then!
On 03/31/2010 11:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote: ...
Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years. Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
So, if I set up a server with RHEL 5.5 or CentOS 5.4 today, I would only get updates until 14-Mar-2012, if the life time is reduced to 5 years?
That's less than two years.
That's a bit too short lifetime for my servers.
Yes of course, I can upgrade to RHEL 6 when it comes out, but my reason for paying Red Hat is to avoid the upgrade.
Mogens
I'm not surprised at the "delay" for RHEL 6. Consider 2.x is still supported this means they are supporting 4 different RHEL versions right now. I would actually wait until at least 2.x dies..if not maybe 3.x before spitting out another version.
On 4/1/2010 7:16 AM, Mogens Kjaer wrote:
On 03/31/2010 11:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote: ...
Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years. Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
So, if I set up a server with RHEL 5.5 or CentOS 5.4 today, I would only get updates until 14-Mar-2012, if the life time is reduced to 5 years?
That's less than two years.
That's a bit too short lifetime for my servers.
Yes of course, I can upgrade to RHEL 6 when it comes out, but my reason for paying Red Hat is to avoid the upgrade.
Mogens
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
On 03/31/2010 11:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote: ...
Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years. Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
So, if I set up a server with RHEL 5.5 or CentOS 5.4 today, I would only get updates until 14-Mar-2012, if the life time is reduced to 5 years?
That's less than two years.
That's a bit too short lifetime for my servers
They won't change the cycle for existing releases (they would get into contract liability if they did).
RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May 31, 2009).
RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
RHEL4 will go out of support Feb 29, 2012
RHEL5 will go out of support Mar 31, 2014
*If* they change it in the future, it would only apply to the next major releases (IOW RHEL6+)
They won't change the cycle for existing releases (they would get into contract liability if they did).
RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May 31, 2009).
RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
RHEL4 will go out of support Feb 29, 2012
RHEL5 will go out of support Mar 31, 2014
*If* they change it in the future, it would only apply to the next major releases (IOW RHEL6+)
-- Benjamin Franz
wow...
think about it...
remember when *we all* were chomping at the bit for Centos3...
yeah, like horses... that's right... chomping at the bit... ;-)
at least i seem to recall it was version 3, and then Centos4 came out and we all needed a migration path from 3 to 4...
and thankfully, there was an easy way... again, if i remember correctly...
seems like yesterday cause we still use version 4 and, of course, some ver 5 too....
- rh
On 4/1/2010 10:14 AM, R-Elists wrote:
They won't change the cycle for existing releases (they would get into contract liability if they did).
RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May 31, 2009).
RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
RHEL4 will go out of support Feb 29, 2012
RHEL5 will go out of support Mar 31, 2014
*If* they change it in the future, it would only apply to the next major releases (IOW RHEL6+)
-- Benjamin Franz
wow...
think about it...
remember when *we all* were chomping at the bit for Centos3...
yeah, like horses... that's right... chomping at the bit... ;-)
at least i seem to recall it was version 3, and then Centos4 came out and we all needed a migration path from 3 to 4...
and thankfully, there was an easy way... again, if i remember correctly...
seems like yesterday cause we still use version 4 and, of course, some ver 5 too....
I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that still seems like it was a good move even if most of the problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with many years elapsing between releases, skipping a version like that may not be possible again.
I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that still seems like it was a good move even if most of the problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with many years elapsing between releases, skipping a version like that may not be possible again.
-- Les Mikesell
Les,
what was buggy for you?
internet facing or just internal servers?
centos and the centos team have been rock solid for us in dealing with CentOS 4 on our servers.
- rh
On 4/1/2010 12:08 PM, R-Elists wrote:
I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that still seems like it was a good move even if most of the problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with many years elapsing between releases, skipping a version like that may not be possible again.
-- Les Mikesell
Les,
what was buggy for you?
internet facing or just internal servers?
centos and the centos team have been rock solid for us in dealing with CentOS 4 on our servers.
I can't remember the exact details. Some of it had to do with mod_perl and the assortment of other perl modules needed for RT, Twiki, and some other applications. And maybe the mysql version was wrong for something I wanted to run. A lot of the things weren't technically broken, just not particularly good version choices for their time. I may have had some driver problems with a Dell raid controller or firewire too, but I could be confusing it with Fedora 5 in the same timeframe. Anyway, as soon as 5.x was out it seemed much easier to deal with. There are still a few Centos 4's in the company that someone else maintains so I guess they are OK if you stick to the included software and don't need mod_perl.
At Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:29:26 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
On 4/1/2010 12:08 PM, R-Elists wrote:
I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that still seems like it was a good move even if most of the problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with many years elapsing between releases, skipping a version like that may not be possible again.
-- Les Mikesell
Les,
what was buggy for you?
internet facing or just internal servers?
centos and the centos team have been rock solid for us in dealing with CentOS 4 on our servers.
I can't remember the exact details. Some of it had to do with mod_perl and the assortment of other perl modules needed for RT, Twiki, and some
*I* ended up using the standalone HTTP server for RT and populated the missing perl mods from rpmforge.
other applications. And maybe the mysql version was wrong for something
CentOSPlus is needed for a *proper* version of mysql AND PHP for Joomla! and WordPress.
I wanted to run. A lot of the things weren't technically broken, just not particularly good version choices for their time. I may have had some driver problems with a Dell raid controller or firewire too, but I
CentOSPlus has the firewire drivers...
could be confusing it with Fedora 5 in the same timeframe. Anyway, as soon as 5.x was out it seemed much easier to deal with. There are still a few Centos 4's in the company that someone else maintains so I guess they are OK if you stick to the included software and don't need mod_perl.
On 4/1/2010 1:35 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that still seems like it was a good move even if most of the problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with many years elapsing between releases, skipping a version like that may not be possible again.
-- Les Mikesell
Les,
what was buggy for you?
internet facing or just internal servers?
centos and the centos team have been rock solid for us in dealing with CentOS 4 on our servers.
I can't remember the exact details. Some of it had to do with mod_perl and the assortment of other perl modules needed for RT, Twiki, and some
*I* ended up using the standalone HTTP server for RT and populated the missing perl mods from rpmforge.
I did have it all working for a while on some machines but it seemed like something would break every time I updated anything.
other applications. And maybe the mysql version was wrong for something
CentOSPlus is needed for a *proper* version of mysql AND PHP for Joomla! and WordPress.
I wanted to run. A lot of the things weren't technically broken, just not particularly good version choices for their time. I may have had some driver problems with a Dell raid controller or firewire too, but I
CentOSPlus has the firewire drivers...
I used that too, but eventually replaced my external firewire drives with hot-swap SATA bays. But overall, I could not see anything at all that was better in 4.x than 5.x, so I migrated as much as I could directly from 3 to 5 and replaced the few 4.x's that I had installed as quickly as possible - and it still seems like the right thing to have done. I still have a few 3.x's lingering on, mostly because they never break and they have some odd application setups that I'm hoping won't be needed much longer so I won't have to re-create them.
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Robert Heller heller@deepsoft.com wrote:
CentOSPlus has the firewire drivers...
I asked about this a little while back, and I'm pretty sure the firewire drivers are ok in the non-plus CentOS.
Or did I get that one wrong?
mhr
on 4-1-2010 6:42 AM Benjamin Franz spake the following:
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
On 03/31/2010 11:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote: ...
Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years. Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a year ago?
So, if I set up a server with RHEL 5.5 or CentOS 5.4 today, I would only get updates until 14-Mar-2012, if the life time is reduced to 5 years?
That's less than two years.
That's a bit too short lifetime for my servers
They won't change the cycle for existing releases (they would get into contract liability if they did).
RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May 31, 2009).
RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
RHEL4 will go out of support Feb 29, 2012
Since the world will end in 2012, your version 5 installs will be just fine!!! LOL
RHEL5 will go out of support Mar 31, 2014
*If* they change it in the future, it would only apply to the next major releases (IOW RHEL6+)
RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May
31, 2009).
RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
RHEL4 will go out of support Feb 29, 2012
Since the world will end in 2012, your version 5 installs will be just fine!!! LOL
Scott,
hehehe, do you mean biblically or the *kaboom* version re: end of world ?
time tables re: upstream or centos support could be off depending on what you believe...
- rh
Am 31.03.2010 18:47, schrieb MHR:
Since 5.5 is now out from Red Hat and most likely our amazing CentOS team has already jumped on that, is there any word on Release 6? IIRC it's already a year out of date (base was supposed to be Fedora 10), so I have to wonder.
I didn't see anything jump out at me on the Red Hat site, so - anyone?
Afaik it's based on Fedora 12. That's what you can read from bugzilla and look at the kernel versions the talk about. eg: kernel-2.6.32-14.el6
Rainer
Afaik it's based on Fedora 12.
Recent activity on the EPEL repo mailing list [1] seems to indicate that they plan to branch EPEL-6 packages from Fedora 12.
I guess that they are well informed, so this supports the idea that Fedora 12 will be the basis for RHEL 6.
[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2010-March/msg00078.html "we will be branching EL-6 branches from F-12 branches"
Mathieu Baudier a écrit :
Afaik it's based on Fedora 12.
Recent activity on the EPEL repo mailing list [1] seems to indicate that they plan to branch EPEL-6 packages from Fedora 12.
Recently a friend of mine complained his Debian stable system was "too conservative", given the somewhat outdated software. I told him not to mind, since Debian is bleeding edge compared to my OS of choice.
:o)
On 4/1/2010 9:11 AM, Niki Kovacs wrote:
Mathieu Baudier a écrit :
Afaik it's based on Fedora 12.
Recent activity on the EPEL repo mailing list [1] seems to indicate that they plan to branch EPEL-6 packages from Fedora 12.
Recently a friend of mine complained his Debian stable system was "too conservative", given the somewhat outdated software. I told him not to mind, since Debian is bleeding edge compared to my OS of choice.
Yeah - remember the good old days when we liked RH (and thus Centos) because they had a real release schedule that you could plan around instead of "when it's ready"?
Niki Kovacs wrote:
Recently a friend of mine complained his Debian stable system was "too conservative", given the somewhat outdated software. I told him not to mind, since Debian is bleeding edge compared to my OS of choice.
Maybe your friend needs another distro, of course everyone knows it's conservative for a reason. I've been a Debian user for 12 years now, and still run it exclusively on my own systems. Though I use CentOS/RHEL for "work" stuff. For those 12 years I've run stable throughout except for about a year in ~2001 when I ran testing for a little while. Even on my desktops I run stable. If the hardware is too new(desktops/laptops only) I run Ubuntu since it has a similar package selection.
I *just* finished upgrading to CentOS 5.4 6 days ago.
nate
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM, nate centos@linuxpowered.net wrote:
I *just* finished upgrading to CentOS 5.4 6 days ago.
How many people got trampled in the rush?
;^)
mhr
MHR wrote:
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM, nate centos@linuxpowered.net wrote:
I *just* finished upgrading to CentOS 5.4 6 days ago.
How many people got trampled in the rush?
You might be surprised how many outages it takes to co-ordinate such an upgrade in a medium-large environment(and nobody including me likes to take *everything* down at once though we did have such an outage a few weeks ago to move a storage array I upgraded about 30 systems on that day). The fully redundant systems are easy to upgrade of course but there are lots of systems that are not fully redundant(and can't be made as such due to application design).
I tried doing some online upgrades for some of our more important systems(minus reboot for kernel) but something in the update wrecked havok on our NFS cluster the systems are very active doing NFS stuff 24/7. The NFS cluster recovered automatically but each time it took about 3 hours. I don't know what the upgrade might of restarted that would of impacted NFS activity. Since the upgrade there has been no repeats of the issue but during the upgrade within 30 minutes of upgrading active NFS clients(while they were doing stuff) caused immediate headaches on the cluster.
I suspect it's the first OS "upgrade" my company has done at least on linux. Looking through my inventory of systems these are getting a bit stale RHEL3/4:
1 AS release 3 (Taroon Update 3) 5 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 1) 6 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 3) 36 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 4) 1 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 6)
I don't count RHEL4->CentOS v5 as an upgrade since it is a complete re-install. For the most part those will get upgraded when the systems are retired I think.
nate
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM, nate centos@linuxpowered.net wrote:
You might be surprised how many outages it takes to co-ordinate such an upgrade in a medium-large environment(and nobody including me likes to take *everything* down at once though we did have such an outage a few weeks ago to move a storage array I upgraded about 30 systems on that day). The fully redundant systems are easy to upgrade of course but there are lots of systems that are not fully redundant(and can't be made as such due to application design).
I tried doing some online upgrades for some of our more important systems(minus reboot for kernel) but something in the update wrecked havok on our NFS cluster the systems are very active doing NFS stuff 24/7. The NFS cluster recovered automatically but each time it took about 3 hours. I don't know what the upgrade might of restarted that would of impacted NFS activity. Since the upgrade there has been no repeats of the issue but during the upgrade within 30 minutes of upgrading active NFS clients(while they were doing stuff) caused immediate headaches on the cluster.
I suspect it's the first OS "upgrade" my company has done at least on linux. Looking through my inventory of systems these are getting a bit stale RHEL3/4:
1 AS release 3 (Taroon Update 3) 5 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 1) 6 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 3) 36 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 4) 1 AS release 4 (Nahant Update 6)
I don't count RHEL4->CentOS v5 as an upgrade since it is a complete re-install. For the most part those will get upgraded when the systems are retired I think.
I was kind of pulling your leg a little there, but I don't even like to reboot my standalone desktop - five minutes of downtime is trivial but I just don't like to do it. 30 systems? Yoik!
As for moving from 4 to 5, that's not a trivial thing at all - and it's not an "upgrade" per se unless you have LOTS of faith in the process. I always reinstall across releases, and that's a royal pain (though usually worth it for the new features, like a newer GNOME and all that goes with it).
BTW, certain specific upgrades would be really nice. For one thing, Google's Chrome browser is now available for Linux, but you have to have a newer version of (I think it was) gtk that's not available on RH/C 5 at all - yet.
Ah, well, patience in this particular arena pays off - we get the best support and solid reliability for free, so a little wait, or even a long one, is worth it in my book.
CIao.
mhr
MHR wrote:
but I just don't like to do it. 30 systems? Yoik!
Out of ~300 ..
As for moving from 4 to 5, that's not a trivial thing at all - and it's not an "upgrade" per se unless you have LOTS of faith in the process. I always reinstall across releases, and that's a royal pain (though usually worth it for the new features, like a newer GNOME and all that goes with it).
Funny thing is for me the hardest part is getting the downtime to do the work, the OS reinstall is easy, the apps already support it and cfengine automatically configures the systems with everything they need. I can re-install a system and get the apps re-installed in ~30 minutes, but it's a real headache for the apps guys to take the apps down and/or move customers off those systems to other systems. And I'm not in *that* big of a hurry I have other things I am working on of course..
I came across a system a few days ago that had an uptime of over 1000 days...here it is
[root@us-mon001 ~]# uptime 19:22:02 up 1012 days, 4:24, 1 user, load average: 0.04, 0.20, 0.26 [root@us-mon001 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS release 4 (Nahant Update 1)
Part of me doesn't want to re-install it..(I have no immediate plans to..)
You know your missing a kernel update or two when your uptime gets over 3 years.
BTW, certain specific upgrades would be really nice. For one thing, Google's Chrome browser is now available for Linux, but you have to have a newer version of (I think it was) gtk that's not available on RH/C 5 at all - yet.
Chrome..google. While I'm sure it's a nice browser I don't trust google with my information..
Ah, well, patience in this particular arena pays off - we get the best support and solid reliability for free, so a little wait, or even a long one, is worth it in my book.
Me too..
nate
-
Benjamin Franz -
Dan Burkland -
Jeremy Rosengren -
Joe Klemmer -
Joseph L. Casale -
Kwan Lowe -
Les Mikesell -
Mathieu Baudier -
MHR -
Michael Semcheski -
Milos Blazevic -
Mogens Kjaer -
nate -
Niki Kovacs -
Pasi Kärkkäinen -
Paul Heinlein -
Paul Stuffins -
R-Elists -
Rainer Traut -
Rajagopal Swaminathan -
Robert Heller -
Scott Silva -
Spiro Harvey -
Stephen Harris -
Steve Thompson -
Tait Clarridge -
Timo Schoeler -
William Warren