Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:24 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote: I am bringing up several Fedora Core 7 boxen into production now. Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). First of all, let me state for the record that I'm a big fan of (and contributor to) Fedora as a desktop Linux distribution. Also, I'm taking my Digium hat off for a minute... these opinions are mine, and not to be confused with any sort of official position from Digium. The biggest problem I see with Fedora (it's no longer called Fedora Core as of version 7 -- it's just Fedora again) as a distro for a PBX is that packages are only updated for at most 13 months. So, for example, many people using Fedora Core 3 for their PBX no longer have access to security updates, etc. for their Asterisk box. They basically assume you're OK with upgrading your box every year, or that you don't care about long-term updates (which may be fine for a desktop machine, but is less friendly in terms of a server OS). Personally, I use CentOS (when I don't care about support) or RHEL (when support is important to me) as my preferred server distribution, simply because they guarantee to have *years* worth (at least five years!) of security updates, even if I choose not to upgrade to the latest distribution. (Debian has a similar policy, although I'm not sure the exact length of time.) As an added bonus, most of the server-class hardware vendors (HP, Dell, IBM, etc.) seem to have better driver support for RHEL than any other distribution. They might have a slower release cycle (averaging 18 to 24 months) than Fedora (which is averaging 6-7 months between releases), but the long-term viability makes the trade-off worth it in my mind. In the end though, it really boils down to this: The best Linux distribution for your Asterisk box is the one you are the most comfortable, especially when it comes to making sure the box is stable and secure. -Jared Smith ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 18:24 -0400, Steve Totaro wrote: [snip] Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). Steve, Fedora 7 supports High Resolution Timers which (afaik) is not present in the RHEL5/CentOS5 kernels. If I understand it correctly this could be beneficial on a box that has no TDM card. Guess you could test the difference and see if it is beneficial for your setup. The patch for ztdummy which improved zttest results for me can be found here: http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=10314 Regards, Patrick ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
On 8/27/07, Jared Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I use CentOS (when I don't care about support) or RHEL (when support is important to me) as my preferred server distribution, simply because they guarantee to have *years* worth (at least five years!) of security updates, even if I choose not to upgrade to the latest distribution. (Debian has a similar policy, although I'm not sure the exact length of time.) Debian usually provides regular updates until next major release release, and security updates within year after next major release. Plus a really good thing is that major releases come out with interval of 2 til 5 years - so they are much better tested than all the other distributions (with release cycle of half year). Also upgrade to next version is usually painless (i have seen some troubles with Debian's fork project - Ubuntu). So, if you are into long-term stability and regular updates - Debian have it. However for desktop i prefer Gentoo. It also have very good policy about updates - you don't have to worry much about them when you find right tools. But i don't want my servers to be busy with regular compiling - so servers are Debian. Regards, Atis -- Atis Lezdins, IT Responsible of BEST Riga, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 142239285 Skype: atis.lezdins Cell Phone: +371 28806004 [Tele2, Latvia] Work phone: +1 800 7502835 [Toll free, USA] ?BEST? - www.BEST.eu.org ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
Steve Totaro wrote: But in all reality, value added features such as support and automatic updates aside, is there really a mainstream flavor of Linux that is better or worse for running Asterisk (or other apps for that matter)? I have had equal luck with all that I have played with (but not heavy load tested). I am bringing up several Fedora Core 7 boxen into production now. Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. We've run all our servers on Gentoo with excellent results. Choose your Linux distribution for stability and ease of administration -- if it meets those requirements for you, it's a good choice. Linux is a beautiful thing. I've never had something more stable! -Stephen- ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
I concur, Centos 4.4 FTW. ^^ -- Original Message -- From: Edgar Guadamuz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussionasterisk-users@lists.digium.com Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 23:50:51 -0600 I have used CentOS and it works fine and it is easy to install. I know that Debian is a little more complicated to install Asterisk and some teatures on Debian. I'd choice CentOS 4.2 or 4.4, as my personal preference. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users Sent via the WebMail system at rockynet.com ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 12:31:15AM -0600, Anthony Francis wrote: I concur, Centos 4.4 FTW. ^^ Centos 4.4, as in not the latest, and already hald the packages are not in the repositories? Any specific reason you avoid Centos 4.5? Centos5? Any specific reason to keep using something that is still labled kernel 2.6.9, that has quite a buggy udev implementation, for once? Debian++, BTW. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
. . . Personally I recommend SuSE Linux. OpenSuSE without the GUI installed will do just fine. If you want to buy SLES that's fine, but I really don't see the value in it. The value would be live support and access to online updates. Courtesy (for the price) of Novell. There are, of course, some differences between OpenSuse and SLES. I've run Asterisk on SLES 9 and SLES 10 without problems. Your View/Mileage May Vary. joe a. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
On 8/25/07, Joe Acquisto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: . . . Personally I recommend SuSE Linux. OpenSuSE without the GUI installed will do just fine. If you want to buy SLES that's fine, but I really don't see the value in it. The value would be live support and access to online updates. Courtesy (for the price) of Novell. There are, of course, some differences between OpenSuse and SLES. I've run Asterisk on SLES 9 and SLES 10 without problems. Your View/Mileage May Vary. joe a. With OpenSuSE you get free updates. The support is of no value to me. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
. . . The value would be live support and access to online updates. Courtesy (for the price) of Novell. There are, of course, some differences between OpenSuse and SLES. I've run Asterisk on SLES 9 and SLES 10 without problems. Your View/Mileage May Vary. joe a. With OpenSuSE you get free updates. The support is of no value to me. As stated YMVMV. For some people, the ability to have support and to have updates downloaded and installed automatically, (if desired) might be of value. For others, it would have no value or even a negative value. joe a. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
Joe Acquisto wrote: . . . The value would be live support and access to online updates. Courtesy (for the price) of Novell. There are, of course, some differences between OpenSuse and SLES. I've run Asterisk on SLES 9 and SLES 10 without problems. Your View/Mileage May Vary. joe a. With OpenSuSE you get free updates. The support is of no value to me. As stated YMVMV. For some people, the ability to have support and to have updates downloaded and installed automatically, (if desired) might be of value. For others, it would have no value or even a negative value. joe a. But in all reality, value added features such as support and automatic updates aside, is there really a mainstream flavor of Linux that is better or worse for running Asterisk (or other apps for that matter)? I have had equal luck with all that I have played with (but not heavy load tested). I am bringing up several Fedora Core 7 boxen into production now. Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. Thanks, Steve Totaro ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
. . . Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. Thanks, Steve Totaro I'd have to review the entire thread to see if anyone actually claimed any flavor was best, but can point to the subject that just asked for something fine. For my part, I offered my comments without an axe to grind, no skin in the game. But it certainly might be interesting to see if someone has a best and reasons for it. joe a. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
Joe Acquisto wrote: . . . Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. Thanks, Steve Totaro I'd have to review the entire thread to see if anyone actually claimed any flavor was best, but can point to the subject that just asked for something fine. For my part, I offered my comments without an axe to grind, no skin in the game. But it certainly might be interesting to see if someone has a best and reasons for it. joe a. Joe, My intention was not to imply anything about anybody or anything. I just really want to know if there are solid, definable differences or comparisons. I see so many threads with fanboys who swear by this or that but never provide any objective support of their statements. I figured this thread would wind up going in the same direction, thats all. I have the same questions you do, I am just trying to preempt the fanboys. Thanks, Steve Totaro ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Steve Totaro wrote: I am bringing up several Fedora Core 7 boxen into production now. Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. Hi Steve, I've run most operating systems on various boxes. - From early RedHats through to Fedora Core, Gentoo, Debian, Mandriva, Suse, CentOS, Ubuntu etc etc. Initially I was quite fond of Redhat stuff, but then they went commercial and I didn't want to pay for support. So I moved to Fedora Core. Unfortunately some of the old Fedora Core installations are now unsupported and even the old yum repositories have stopped providing updates. At the end of the day, the problem I see with Fedora is that they do things slightly differently from other OSes in the placement of files etc, which can cause headaches you wouldn't see on others. However, there are so many people using Fedora/CentOS/Redhat Enterprise that a quick search of Google will normally reveal the result. Recently I've been installing Mandriva on boxes (simply because it was on the cover of a magazine when I urgently needed a copy of Linux), and have found that once over the initial learning curve it has proven to be stable. I'm also running Debian and Ubuntu on a few boxes, and find them to be stable and standard. They're all pretty much the same with the exception of Gentoo and FreeBSD, which tend to be for the ricers. I won't argue about the fact that you would definitely get more performance out of FreeBSD or Gentoo, but for me the amount of extra work setting up these systems outweighs the performance benefits later on. A lot of the differences between distros comes from their choice of package management systems. Once you've used urpmi, yum, up2date, apt-get etc a few times it doesn't really make too much difference which one you're using. One thing that bit me with Mandriva though was that they asked me how secure I wanted the box to be at the start. Normally I set up boxes with maximum security and the absolute least amount of software possible, then add what I need. So, I chose the most restrictive security level. Unfortunately (for me) this meant that it would run cron jobs to change the contents of files and ownerships and disallowed most network communications. Once I fixed that it was fine. The other one that has bitten me a couple of times is SELinux on Fedora, which has resulted in some incredibly strange errors that took rather a long time to find. If I have a problem on a Fedora system that doesn't seem to have a logical answer, I'll quite often disable SELinux for a moment to see if that fixes it. Obviously when that is the problem, you can turn SELinux back on and create rules to allow it to function as you expected. So, is there a best distro? Not really, it depends on what you want out of a system, how much work you are willing to put into each machine, and how much time you want to spend doing maintenance. Here's my opinions: Fastest: Gentoo/FreeBSD Easiest: Fedora/Redhat EL/CentOS Most Stable (for me): Debian/Ubuntu/Mandriva - -- Kind Regards, Matt Riddell Director ___ http://www.venturevoip.com (Great new VoIP end to end solution) http://www.venturevoip.com/news.php (Daily Asterisk News - html) http://feeds.venturevoip.com/AsteriskNews (Daily Asterisk News - rss) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFG0K10DQNt8rg0Kp4RAtzEAJ9+FFgTPjf5CQYxJ0ZE3wNUb81LZwCgv3Dv jdOJ4Trfa0VCY5gYNOunxgU= =uFvm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 06:24:54PM -0400, Steve Totaro wrote: I am bringing up several Fedora Core 7 boxen into production now. Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). Which Fedora 7 exactly? The one originally released with kernel 2.6.21-1.3194 or the current one with 2.6.22.4-65? Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. An obvious problem with Fedora is that while it is being maintained, packages there change rapidly. So in order to get bug fixes, you'll have to get new features (and potentially more bugs as well). And after a period which is not so long, it stops being maintained at all, and you have no source for bugfixes. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
Matt Riddell wrote: Steve Totaro wrote: I am bringing up several Fedora Core 7 boxen into production now. Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. At the end of the day, the problem I see with Fedora is that they do things slightly differently from other OSes in the placement of files etc, which can cause headaches you wouldn't see on others. Exactly. I had some difficulties on Fedora as well (can't remember what kind of problem it was - something about zaptel I think) while it just worked for me on Debian or CentOS. (@Steve: So Fedora sucks and Debian is the best ;-) However, there are so many people using Fedora/CentOS/Redhat Enterprise that a quick search of Google will normally reveal the result. While I'm curious if there is a best OS for Asterisk it probably boils down to the simple rule: Use whatever OS you are familiar with and stick to it. If you're used to Debian then CentOS is a bit different too. Unless someone can prove whatever OS is best for Asterisk I'd recommend to use a mainstream distribution. Although I have compiled Asterisk on MacOSX myself this wouldn't be my first choice for a production server - mainly because the whole file system layout is so different and there isn't really an integrated package management. A lot of the differences between distros comes from their choice of package management systems. Once you've used urpmi, yum, up2date, apt-get etc a few times it doesn't really make too much difference which one you're using. Right. But once you need a more complex set of software tools it's a great timesaver to know what the packages are called on a system and what's in there. A word on SuSE: To my impression YaST is an essential part of it. On the one hand I like it but on the other - well, you can shoot yourself in the foot. It tries to be smart and parse all kinds of /etc/* files and doesn't always do a good job. Setting up a DHCP server with some classes and pools for example is almost a piece of cake on Debian. On SuSE it's more like this: Um, I could edit /etc/dhcpd.conf directly but then the next time someone edits the settings with YaST they'd really mess things up - without even knowing. I'm so glad nobody in this thread has argued for using Windows. ;) (It doesn't even come with an ssh client! You really feel like your hands are tied.) Regards, Philipp Kempgen -- amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones. Asterisk? - http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de My pick of the month: rfc 2822 3.6.5 Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998 ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
What Digium is using is rpath, RHEL /Centos On 8/25/07, Philipp Kempgen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt Riddell wrote: Steve Totaro wrote: I am bringing up several Fedora Core 7 boxen into production now. Besides a knee jerk reaction that Fedora Sucks, can someone give a real argument as to why I should or should not use it for production? (besides the several MB of yum updates daily, which to me is a good thing). Besides naming a flavor and saying It is the best, can someone add a few statements as to why, which will obviously have to compare the other flavors. At the end of the day, the problem I see with Fedora is that they do things slightly differently from other OSes in the placement of files etc, which can cause headaches you wouldn't see on others. Exactly. I had some difficulties on Fedora as well (can't remember what kind of problem it was - something about zaptel I think) while it just worked for me on Debian or CentOS. (@Steve: So Fedora sucks and Debian is the best ;-) However, there are so many people using Fedora/CentOS/Redhat Enterprise that a quick search of Google will normally reveal the result. While I'm curious if there is a best OS for Asterisk it probably boils down to the simple rule: Use whatever OS you are familiar with and stick to it. If you're used to Debian then CentOS is a bit different too. Unless someone can prove whatever OS is best for Asterisk I'd recommend to use a mainstream distribution. Although I have compiled Asterisk on MacOSX myself this wouldn't be my first choice for a production server - mainly because the whole file system layout is so different and there isn't really an integrated package management. A lot of the differences between distros comes from their choice of package management systems. Once you've used urpmi, yum, up2date, apt-get etc a few times it doesn't really make too much difference which one you're using. Right. But once you need a more complex set of software tools it's a great timesaver to know what the packages are called on a system and what's in there. A word on SuSE: To my impression YaST is an essential part of it. On the one hand I like it but on the other - well, you can shoot yourself in the foot. It tries to be smart and parse all kinds of /etc/* files and doesn't always do a good job. Setting up a DHCP server with some classes and pools for example is almost a piece of cake on Debian. On SuSE it's more like this: Um, I could edit /etc/dhcpd.conf directly but then the next time someone edits the settings with YaST they'd really mess things up - without even knowing. I'm so glad nobody in this thread has argued for using Windows. ;) (It doesn't even come with an ssh client! You really feel like your hands are tied.) Regards, Philipp Kempgen -- amooma GmbH - Bachstr. 126 - 56566 Neuwied - http://www.amooma.de Let's use IT to solve problems and not to create new ones. Asterisk? - http://www.das-asterisk-buch.de My pick of the month: rfc 2822 3.6.5 Geschäftsführer: Stefan Wintermeyer Handelsregister: Neuwied B 14998 ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
Dear which Linux version would be fine for asterisk CentOS 5.0 or Debian 4.0 or RHEL 4.0 Regards Satish patel - Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
CentOS and RHEL are the same thing. One uses the RedHat trademark, the other doesnt. One is expensive, the other isn't. I don't like to recommend either because I just don't like RedHat's business practices. Personally I recommend SuSE Linux. OpenSuSE without the GUI installed will do just fine. If you want to buy SLES that's fine, but I really don't see the value in it. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] which OS would be fine for asterisk
I have used CentOS and it works fine and it is easy to install. I know that Debian is a little more complicated to install Asterisk and some teatures on Debian. I'd choice CentOS 4.2 or 4.4, as my personal preference. ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
