Hi all,
Let me start off with a little back ground. I am running right now RH9 fully updated on a Dell PowerEdge 1600SC with 512megs of Ram, 18G SCSI HD. I run this at home so this is no critical server, unless you ask my girls when I have it down, I have been debating on upgrading to Fedora until I started looking at CentOS. I have download the ISO and burned them with X-CD-Roast. Here is my question:
I tried running the mediacheck on the cd's and it would lock up right before the media check screen appears. I have googled and tried the ide=nodma and other options, but to still no avial. I also ran memtest86, now here is where the kicker is. It did show there was some errors, and these I will check out. But I then got a wild idea and pulled out my 1st CD of RH9, dropped it into the CD drive and at the boot prompt ran media check. RH9 disk 1 checked out fine, so I dropped in the CentOS disk 1 and ran it. It checked out fine and so did all the rest of them. Is this a vaild test?? Or am I just blowing in the wind here?? Thanks for any input into this matter!!
Lee Perez Still learning!!!
centos-bounces@centos.org <> scribbled on Monday, September 12, 2005 6:53 PM:
Hi all,
Let me start off with a little back ground. I am running right now RH9 fully updated on a Dell PowerEdge 1600SC with 512megs of Ram, 18G SCSI HD. I run this at home so this is no critical server, unless you ask my girls when I have it down, I have been debating on upgrading to Fedora until I started looking at CentOS. I have download the ISO and burned them with X-CD-Roast. Here is my question:
I tried running the mediacheck on the cd's and it would lock up right before the media check screen appears. I have googled and tried the ide=nodma and other options, but to still no avial. I also ran memtest86, now here is where the kicker is. It did show there was some errors, and these I will check out. But I then got a wild idea and pulled out my 1st CD of RH9, dropped it into the CD drive and at the boot prompt ran media check. RH9 disk 1 checked out fine, so I dropped in the CentOS disk 1 and ran it. It checked out fine and so did all the rest of them. Is this a vaild test?? Or am I just blowing in the wind here?? Thanks for any input into this matter!!
Lee Perez Still learning!!!
I've never trusted the media check. I ran it once a few years ago on some CD's I burned and they failed the test, yet the install went in without incident. I'd just burn and turn :)
Mike
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:53 -0500, cajun wrote:
I am running right now RH9 fully updated on a Dell PowerEdge 1600SC with 512megs of Ram, 18G SCSI HD ... RH9 disk 1 checked out fine, so I dropped in the CentOS disk 1 and ran it. It checked out fine and so did all the rest of them. Is this a vaild test?? Or am I just blowing in the wind here?? Thanks for any input into this matter!!
Any reason you want to install CentOS when you have a running RHL9 system?
BTW, although I've had no major issues updating RHL to FC releases, as FC is the logical upgrade path, RHEL/CentOS is not designed to be an upgrade option for RHL.
On 9/12/05, Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org wrote:
Any reason you want to install CentOS when you have a running RHL9 system?
BTW, although I've had no major issues updating RHL to FC releases, as FC is the logical upgrade path, RHEL/CentOS is not designed to be an upgrade option for RHL.
No upgrade path is really all that supported or fool-proof. Since he hasn't upgraded his system from RH9 I would say that CentOS is more likely to suit him than FCx since CentOS will be supported with more certainty for a longer period of time.
Regards, Greg
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 21:04 -0600, Greg Knaddison wrote:
No upgrade path is really all that supported or fool-proof.
I never said it was fool-proof or asserted anything of the sort. Fedora Core versions _are_ designed to upgrade Red Hat Linux. Red Hat Enterprise Linux / CentOS do not.
In other words, I wanted him to know that Red Hat Enterprise Linux / CentOS aren't done via direct "CD Upgrades" from Red Hat Linux. That's all. Don't read too much into what I said.
He mentioned Fedora Core, so I explained to him that its the linear upgrade path from Red Hat Linux if you're planning to do a direct "CD Upgrade."
Since he hasn't upgraded his system from RH9
And with Fedora Legacy support continuing, unless he needs features, I'd just leave Red Hat Linux 9 in place for now. At least I'd do it _instead_ of trying to "upgrade" to CentOS via direct CD upgrade.
I would say that CentOS is more likely to suit him than FCx since CentOS will be supported with more certainty for a longer period of time.
Agreed. Red Hat Enterprise Linux is the only product Red Hat has ever given any certainty on support, so CentOS offers that as well.
I would recommend he stick with Red Hat Linux 9 for now, but consider introducing CentOS 4 by installing it to a new disk on the same hardware. From what I read, I wanted him to know that he can't just do a direct "CD Upgrade" like he could with Fedora Core -- that's all. ;->
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:53 -0500, cajun wrote:
I am running right now RH9 fully updated on a Dell PowerEdge 1600SC with 512megs of Ram, 18G SCSI HD ... RH9 disk 1 checked out fine, so I dropped in the CentOS disk 1 and ran it. It checked out fine and so did all the rest of them. Is this a vaild test?? Or am I just blowing in the wind here?? Thanks for any input into this matter!!
Any reason you want to install CentOS when you have a running RHL9 system?
BTW, although I've had no major issues updating RHL to FC releases, as FC is the logical upgrade path, RHEL/CentOS is not designed to be an upgrade option for RHL.
Hi All,
Thanks for the replies. Sorry to get anything started. I should have been more clear up front. I have been looking at FC for a while now and I knew that you could upgrade from RHL to FC, with little or no trouble. And I also knew that from RHL you can not do an upgrade to RHEL/CentOS. I was looking at doing a fresh install from scratch even with FC. From some of the stories I have read, I figured a fresh install would be easier for me. Besides I need the practice in remembering where everything is. Like cups, firewall scripts, login scripts, samba scripts, etc., etc., etc., haha!!!
The main reason I was shifting to CentOS is because of the longer life cycle. I have enjoyed my RH9 now for the past 2+ years without any troubles. I have decided over the past couple of months that FC is a little to bleeding edge for me right now. Next year about this time, that is another story.
But though, can I say that by using mediacheck in RH9 and checking my CentOS ISO's and them Passing, is this a valid check???
Anyways enough eating up bandwith, Thanks again!!!
Lee Perez
you can upgrade from rh9 to centos (but not by using a disk) and I find centos as a desktop (as well as a server) to be excellent.
cajun wrote:
Bryan J. Smith wrote:
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:53 -0500, cajun wrote:
I am running right now RH9 fully updated on a Dell PowerEdge 1600SC with 512megs of Ram, 18G SCSI HD ... RH9 disk 1 checked out fine, so I dropped in the CentOS disk 1 and ran it. It checked out fine and so did all the rest of them. Is this a vaild test?? Or am I just blowing in the wind here?? Thanks for any input into this matter!!
Any reason you want to install CentOS when you have a running RHL9 system?
BTW, although I've had no major issues updating RHL to FC releases, as FC is the logical upgrade path, RHEL/CentOS is not designed to be an upgrade option for RHL.
Hi All,
Thanks for the replies. Sorry to get anything started. I should have been more clear up front. I have been looking at FC for a while now and I knew that you could upgrade from RHL to FC, with little or no trouble. And I also knew that from RHL you can not do an upgrade to RHEL/CentOS. I was looking at doing a fresh install from scratch even with FC. From some of the stories I have read, I figured a fresh install would be easier for me. Besides I need the practice in remembering where everything is. Like cups, firewall scripts, login scripts, samba scripts, etc., etc., etc., haha!!!
The main reason I was shifting to CentOS is because of the longer life cycle. I have enjoyed my RH9 now for the past 2+ years without any troubles. I have decided over the past couple of months that FC is a little to bleeding edge for me right now. Next year about this time, that is another story.
But though, can I say that by using mediacheck in RH9 and checking my CentOS ISO's and them Passing, is this a valid check???
Anyways enough eating up bandwith, Thanks again!!!
Lee Perez _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 22:30 -0500, cajun wrote:
Thanks for the replies. Sorry to get anything started.
People read too much into things all-the-time. I just wanted to make sure you were aware.
I should have been more clear up front. I have been looking at FC for a while now and I knew that you could upgrade from RHL to FC, with little or no trouble. And I also knew that from RHL you can not do an upgrade to RHEL/CentOS. I was looking at doing a fresh install from scratch even with FC. From some of the stories I have read, I figured a fresh install would be easier for me.
Although I've had no issues upgrading from Red Hat Linux 7.3 through Fedora Core 3, if you're going to re-install, _definitely_ go CentOS for the lifespan. Fedora Legacy hasn't disappointed me yet, but as Greg pointed out, Red Hat has _only guaranteed updates Red Hat Enterprise Linux -- hence CentOS.
-
Bryan J. Smith -
cajun -
Greg Knaddison -
Mike Kercher -
Tom