Good day,
Please am new on CentOS, may you help me with the upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2 using?
Thanks a lot
2012/6/23 Eric Kom erickom@metropolitanstaff.co.za:
Good day,
Please am new on CentOS, may you help me with the upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2 using?
Upgrade from 5.x to 6.x is not supported by CentOS.
On 23/06/2012 10:37, Chris wrote:
2012/6/23 Eric Kom erickom@metropolitanstaff.co.za:
Good day,
Please am new on CentOS, may you help me with the upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2 using?
Upgrade from 5.x to 6.x is not supported by CentOS. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Thanks a lot
Hello Eric,
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 09:52 +0200, Eric Kom wrote:
Please am new on CentOS, may you help me with the upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2 using?
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installati...
"Red Hat does not support in-place upgrades between any major versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux."
Regards, Leonard.
On 06/23/2012 08:45 AM Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Hello Eric,
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 09:52 +0200, Eric Kom wrote:
Please am new on CentOS, may you help me with the upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2 using?
http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Installati...
"Red Hat does not support in-place upgrades between any major versions of Red Hat Enterprise Linux."
Regards, Leonard.
That's redhat's way of saying that an upgrade to a major version is like a new install, meaning you should back up your data etc. before installing 6.2. In short, it takes some planning ahead of time to upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2, especially if you've never done such an upgrade before.
From prior experience I've found major upgrades easier if, in the current setup, instead of having just one volume/partition and so everything under root (/), there are separate partitions or volumes for (at least) /home and /var because redhat (and so too centos) has always recognized that those partitions contain data and will ask if I want to leave them as they are or, instead, overwrite them. If you currently have just one volume/partition, then you *must* backup any data you want to save and then re-install it you have 6.2 running. If you already have separate volumes/partitions on your 5.8 system, you still will want to note which are which so that when you install 6.2 you will be able to make the correct assignments.
There will likely be configuration information you will want to have during the 6.2 install, e.g. your network configuration. So look around under /etc for that and have readable copies of what you will need during the install.
That's some of what's involved. It would take more than just a couple paragraphs to explain everything. Much will depend upon what you are currently running and what you plan to run on 6.2. Hope this helps a bit.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, ken wrote: *snip*
From prior experience I've found major upgrades easier if, in the current setup, instead of having just one volume/partition and so everything under root (/), there are separate partitions or volumes for (at least) /home and /var because redhat (and so too centos) has always recognized that those partitions contain data and will ask if I want to leave them as they are or, instead, overwrite them. If you currently have just one volume/partition, then you *must* backup any data you want to save and then re-install it you have 6.2 running. If you already have separate volumes/partitions on your 5.8 system, you still will want to note which are which so that when you install 6.2 you will be able to make the correct assignments.
I've been caught out before when installing Linux with existing data on several partitions, and had my partitions and data trashed. My work around is to only let the installer use / tmp and swap. That way it cannot touch my partitions with data on them.
Once the initial installation is completed I then install my own /etc/fstab from backups. This then allows the new Linux OS to mount those partitions with existing data on them.
HTH
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] -----------------------------------------------------------
On 06/23/2012 12:42 PM Keith Roberts wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, ken wrote: *snip*
... redhat (and so too centos) has always recognized that those partitions contain data and will ask if I want to leave them as they are or, instead, overwrite them. If you currently have just one volume/partition, then you *must* backup any data you want to save and then re-install it you have 6.2 running. If you already have separate volumes/partitions on your 5.8 system, you still will want to note which are which so that when you install 6.2 you will be able to make the correct assignments.
I've been caught out before when installing Linux with existing data on several partitions, and had my partitions and data trashed. My work around is to only let the installer use / tmp and swap. That way it cannot touch my partitions with data on them.
I've done at least a dozen, maybe three or four dozen installs, with (actual) redhat, suse, centos, and probably others too, but have never had that happen to me. Linux has even recognized every Windows partition I've had and has left those alone to when I've asked it to. This might be because I always select "Custom Install" at the very beginning of the process. IMS, if you select "New Install" (or words to that effect), you don't have the option to select partitions you want to leave untouched during the install.
....
On Sat, 23 Jun 2012, ken wrote: *snip*
I've been caught out before when installing Linux with existing data on several partitions, and had my partitions and data trashed. My work around is to only let the installer use / tmp and swap. That way it cannot touch my partitions with data on them.
I've done at least a dozen, maybe three or four dozen installs, with (actual) redhat, suse, centos, and probably others too, but have never had that happen to me. Linux has even recognized every Windows partition I've had and has left those alone to when I've asked it to. This might be because I always select "Custom Install" at the very beginning of the process. IMS, if you select "New Install" (or words to that effect), you don't have the option to select partitions you want to leave untouched during the install.
Hi Ken.
IIRC that happened a some years ago with Ubuntu. Ever since that happened I've been wary of the various different custom options available from different Linux distros. I just use the Gparted Live CD to do any partition work. I don't use LVM either yet, so that's not a problem for me now.
Kind Regards,
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] -----------------------------------------------------------
On 06/23/2012 05:36 PM Keith Roberts wrote:
....
IIRC that happened a some years ago with Ubuntu. Ever since that happened I've been wary of the various different custom options available from different Linux distros. I just use the Gparted Live CD to do any partition work. I don't use LVM either yet, so that's not a problem for me now.
Keith,
Years ago I used to create a half dozen partitions from the CLI in an afternoon and move things around. It was even fun to do. But no more. LVMs are so cool... you don't have to worry anymore about how big this and that partition should, never worry about running out of space on a partition, because with LVM it's simple to make a volume bigger. No need to move data around. LVM is great, well worth using. If you've got some spare space on a drive, you should give a try. You won't go back to partitions.
On Sunday 24 June 2012 03:03:53 ken did opine:
On 06/23/2012 05:36 PM Keith Roberts wrote:
....
IIRC that happened a some years ago with Ubuntu. Ever since that happened I've been wary of the various different custom options available from different Linux distros. I just use the Gparted Live CD to do any partition work. I don't use LVM either yet, so that's not a problem for me now.
Keith,
Years ago I used to create a half dozen partitions from the CLI in an afternoon and move things around. It was even fun to do. But no more. LVMs are so cool... you don't have to worry anymore about how big this and that partition should, never worry about running out of space on a partition, because with LVM it's simple to make a volume bigger. No need to move data around. LVM is great, well worth using. If you've got some spare space on a drive, you should give a try. You won't go back to partitions.
And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
Cheers, Gene
On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
On 06/24/2012 03:41 PM, Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
Same here. We have 7 Racks full of servers and most of them run virtual machines and we use LVM on the hosts and in the guests. In the last 10 years I've seen many cases of corruption however none of them were ever related to LVM.
Regards, Dennis
On 06/24/2012 09:41 AM Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
Gene,
Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
On 06/24/2012 11:21 AM, ken wrote:
On 06/24/2012 09:41 AM Benjamin Franz wrote:
On 06/24/2012 12:05 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
And what do you do when this LVM goes corrupt in about a month? I've had it self destruct on me twice. I hate it when that happens.
I would look for some other issue like bad hardware. Over the last several years I've routinely used LVM for pretty much everything and have never had it go corrupt on me except when there was a hardware failure involved. My standard buildouts use LVM over RAID.
Gene,
Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
What I don't like about LVM. at least on a personal system, is it obfuscates where things are if you have multiple underlying drives. You can't just do a df -h and see what the physical layout really is. I guess there are some pvdisplay and lvdisplay commands that can show this - but I always have to look them up and when things go kaflooey and your system isn't working then what - bring out the rescue cd and hope you can figure it out.
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, ken wrote: *snip*
Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in recovering more data from a bad disk?
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] -----------------------------------------------------------
On 24/6/2012 7:47 μμ, Keith Roberts wrote:
And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in recovering more data from a bad disk?
Read: http://serverfault.com/questions/279571/lvm-dangers-and-caveats
In a few words, if your hardware is high-quality, i.e. reliable enough so you don't expect problems, LVM adds important functionality and flexibility on servers.
In any case, the need for good backups should not be overlooked. For example, mondorescue allows both full and incremental backups, using LVM or not.
Nick
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org From: Nikolaos Milas nmilas@noa.gr Subject: Re: [CentOS] partitions vs. LVs [was: Re: How to upgrade from 5.8 to 6.2]
On 24/6/2012 7:47 μμ, Keith Roberts wrote:
And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in recovering more data from a bad disk?
Read: http://serverfault.com/questions/279571/lvm-dangers-and-caveats
In a few words, if your hardware is high-quality, i.e. reliable enough so you don't expect problems, LVM adds important functionality and flexibility on servers.
In any case, the need for good backups should not be overlooked. For example, mondorescue allows both full and incremental backups, using LVM or not.
Thanks for that link Nick - I have bookmarked that. I'm looking for work as a Linux System Administrator so will check that out as well.
Kind Regards,
Keith
----------------------------------------------------------- Websites: http://www.karsites.net http://www.php-debuggers.net http://www.raised-from-the-dead.org.uk
All email addresses are challenge-response protected with TMDA [http://tmda.net] -----------------------------------------------------------
On 06/24/2012 12:47 PM Keith Roberts wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2012, ken wrote: *snip*
Yeah, the problem is more than likely in your hardware. I've used it on hundreds of machines and since 1999 and never had a problem traceable to LVM. On the other hand, I've seen a lot of disks go bad.
And what happens then in that situation - do you loose any more data than you would loose with 'standard' primary and extended logical partitions, or does using LVM help in recovering more data from a bad disk?
Keith
Keith,
There are a lot of ways for a disk to go bad, so it's not really possible to give an answer. Most people who seriously address this question work on the assumption that it's easier to keep good backups than to try to recover data from a bad disk.
-
Benjamin Franz -
Chris -
Dennis Jacobfeuerborn -
Eric Kom -
Gene Heskett -
Keith Roberts -
ken -
Leonard den Ottolander -
Nikolaos Milas -
Steve Clark -
Tom Brown