Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Christopher Chan christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote: On Saturday, May 14, 2011 01:30 AM, Craig White wrote: CentOS has always been a take it or leave it proposition and thus nothing has really changed except that many businesses have become reliant upon it and I see my company and many other companies turning to Ubuntu not just because of the slow turnaround by CentOS but upstream's long window between releases. Surely anyone who is supporting Ruby on Rails (or PHP prior to the PHP 5.3 update in the 5.6 update) understands the issue. You want to go Ubuntu 'LTS'? Be my guest. Yeah, they have a lot more packages by default but don't expect any backports or what not for their crap. There are advantages and disadvantages to installing the latest Ubuntu (or Fedora) on the desktop rather than CentOS, but Ubuntu's not crap on the server-side. You have an X-less Debian testing install with plymouth and upstart; testing might not inspire you with confidence but it's proven to be very stable up to now. They freeze Debian imports four months before release so they have enough time to stabilize the release. Ubuntu does have backports (I've never used them though). For example, for the current LTS: http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid-backports/ My clients who switch from CentOS (I was supporting almost 100% CentOS a few years ago but the Debian and Ubuntu share - especially Ubuntu - is growing quickly) do so because it's in vogue (my interpretation) and because the packages are more recent than CentOS's. They often don't even care about LTS! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:05:57AM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? Amnesia of opportunity, perhaps? Or perhaps it's even simpler in that it doesn't suit their end goals to remember. John -- My other computer is your windows box. -- Ralf Hildebrandt pgp7UZ8necTlS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 01:51 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: In my case, I have essentially three choices: 1.) Use SL 6; 2.) Wait on C6; 3.) Buy RHEL6. All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor CentOS will be as fast on updates as choice 3. There are boxes I'm possibly going with SL, but my servers are likely to remain CentOS, unless and until I can get funding to purchase RHEL (which, since it's a subscription, must be purchased out of opex funding). But I fully realize that if I want a fully supported product in the EL space I'm going to have to pay for it, either with RHEL or Oracle or SuSE. Individual/personal support is one thing, timely distro updates is something else. With limited experience, I'm beginning to think ubuntu LTS would be a player in the latter space. I've always been a fan of the coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4. Admittedly, not as many locally configured apps as on my Centos boxes, but it all still seemed to be working after the major-version over-the-network upgrade. Yes, Ubuntu has been quite good on that side of things, 8.04-8.10-9.04-10.4 but having a good dist upgrade process does not cover enough of the other problems you get with Ubuntu 'LTS'. I, for one, will jumping ship at the first opportunity. Running 1 Hardy server and desktop and 1 Lucid desktop over here. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 04:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: One upgrade I did from C4 to C5 (with upgradeany) was smoother than the last LTS upgrade I tried. I liken the C5 - C6 upgrade path as trying to take a Ubuntu LTS 6.06 to a 10.04; which path I tried, and failed, to get working. In one case it was with a Dell laptop that came with Ubuntu from Dell, and that is supported by Dell with Ubuntu. Sound quit (known issue), wireless went funky. One 'accidental' (client-initiated) upgrade from 8.04 to 10.04 lost keyboard and mouse after gdm got control. 6.04-10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04. And even with Dell's that have RHEL support, I've seen issues with CentOS upgrades; but, then again, neither CentOS nor RHEL ( nor SL) support upgrading. Upgrades are difficult problems to solve, and at the moment I don't know of any distribution (that claims upgradability) that gets it completely right for all the cases I've tried. Not even Debian? On the OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana side of things, I have not had problems. And you get a complete rollback option too as a bonus. The CentOS path (it's not supported, but if you're brave and know exactly what you're doing there is upgradeany to let you shoot yourself in the foot) I feel is the correct one. Right...maybe no longer after you have tasted OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana upgrading ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. 1. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the speed of the CentOS-5 and CentOS-4 updates recently? We have spread out the building and checking up updates .. there has been a marked improvement is release speed for updates. 2. Have you, or anyone else, noticed that we have started pushing out the upstream EL Fastrack channel for CentOS-5. In CentOS it is named fasttrack (spelling) on our end due to upstream IP restrictions. http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/fasttrack/ 3. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the QA tracking site that is open to the public? http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/ There is a dashboard of recent events: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/dashboard There is even an RSS feed: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/feed Most of the names who are posting there and taking action are NOT CentOS Project guys, but community people ... isn't that what people were asking for? 4. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the aggregated list of status announcements that we now have? The forum moderators are great and they have started an announcement forum area where they aggregate important information: http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=53 == It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/10/2011 08:19 PM, Craig White wrote: On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:12 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Alain Péan wrote: The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? exactly, and there are additional packages in 6.1 that weren't ready when 6.0 was released. Craig A couple of packages added to the list is not the same as a ZERO point release with no build system. Upstream is now building on a released 6.0 tree ... before they were building on a hodge podge mix that was only in their proprietary build system and nowhere else. On top of that upstream as packages in a optional channel that is not on any ISO set and not easy to obtain for checking purposes. Most of these problems will not be encountered on the NEXT build. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Johnny Hughes wrote: On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. 1. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the speed of the CentOS-5 and CentOS-4 updates recently? We have spread out the building and checking up updates .. there has been a marked improvement is release speed for updates. Yes - noted and appreciated 2. Have you, or anyone else, noticed that we have started pushing out the upstream EL Fastrack channel for CentOS-5. In CentOS it is named fasttrack (spelling) on our end due to upstream IP restrictions. http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/fasttrack/ Yes noted 3. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the QA tracking site that is open to the public? http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/ There is a dashboard of recent events: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/dashboard There is even an RSS feed: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/feed Most of the names who are posting there and taking action are NOT CentOS Project guys, but community people ... isn't that what people were asking for? Yes - I even saw a calendar with some target and milestones 4. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the aggregated list of status announcements that we now have? The forum moderators are great and they have started an announcement forum area where they aggregate important information: http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=53 == It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestions Keep up the great work - Thanks ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos attachment: rkampen.vcf___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/12/2011 09:49 AM, Rob Kampen wrote: Johnny Hughes wrote: On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. 1. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the speed of the CentOS-5 and CentOS-4 updates recently? We have spread out the building and checking up updates .. there has been a marked improvement is release speed for updates. Yes - noted and appreciated 2. Have you, or anyone else, noticed that we have started pushing out the upstream EL Fastrack channel for CentOS-5. In CentOS it is named fasttrack (spelling) on our end due to upstream IP restrictions. http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/fasttrack/ Yes noted 3. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the QA tracking site that is open to the public? http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/ There is a dashboard of recent events: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/dashboard There is even an RSS feed: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/feed Most of the names who are posting there and taking action are NOT CentOS Project guys, but community people ... isn't that what people were asking for? Yes - I even saw a calendar with some target and milestones 4. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the aggregated list of status announcements that we now have? The forum moderators are great and they have started an announcement forum area where they aggregate important information: http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=53 == It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestions Keep up the great work - Thanks +1 -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Sr. Software Engineer III Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
big snip It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestions Keep up the great work - Thanks even bigger +1 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous. • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9 • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. -- Craig White ~~ craig.wh...@ttiltd.com 1.800.869.6908 ~~~ www.ttiassessments.com Need help communicating between generations at work to achieve your desired success? Let us help! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 06:23:52 AM Christopher Chan wrote: 6.04-10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04. I did 6.06 - 8.04 - 10.04, and it broke. Badly. Upgrades are difficult problems to solve, and at the moment I don't know of any distribution (that claims upgradability) that gets it completely right for all the cases I've tried. Not even Debian? The one box I ran Debian on was somewhat unusual, and I lost SMP capability on the box upgrading the one time I did. The box is a DEC AlphaServer 2100 (Sable), and Sable SMP is hard to get these days; the last Debian kernel I know of that supported it was a 2.2 series kernel.. Looking more like I'm going to do at least one, and possibly more, SPARCs on Debian, I'll get a little more experience with it then. I'd rather do CentOS, and be consistent across servers in terms of administration On the OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana side of things, I have not had problems. And you get a complete rollback option too as a bonus. Rollbacks would be good. The smoothest upgrades of any I've ever done have been on EMC Clariion gear and its FLARE operating environment. But that's controlled hardware, and tightly controlled software, not a general purpose OS, so not directly comparable. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 09:12:59 PM Dag Wieers wrote: And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? I can easily think of a few. 4.9 and 6.0 are two of those few. Again, I'll note that SL is just now releasing the second beta of 5.6 this Friday. Not the final SL 5.6. Not to try to make SL look bad in any way, but to highlight that the triple-threat of 6.0, 5.6, and 4.9 is/was hard on both projects. CentOS chose to do 5.6 and 4.9 before 6.0; CentOS is later with 6.0. SL chose to do 6.0 first; they had 6.0 out first, and 4.9 followed, and 5.6 is not yet out. I don't consider a beta or alpha or even an RC release as being 'out' either. And again I'm not being critical of either project; both do a fantastic job. They had and have different priorities, and with a CentOS 5.6 release behind us we now see the effect of those different priorities. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Craig White wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous. • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9 • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. But you need to also calculate time elapsed between date of Distribution Release and date of release of SRPMS for 6.0. Am I correct that it took a month for SRPMS to be released? Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote: • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. But you need to also calculate time elapsed between date of Distribution Release and date of release of SRPMS for 6.0. Am I correct that it took a month for SRPMS to be released? Apparently not, according to: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2010-November/006025.html But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ... Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Steve Clark wrote on 05/12/2011 10:15 AM: Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestions Keep up the great work - Thanks +1 ++1 Please trim your posts. 60+ included lines and 2k characters for for a two character reply amounts to a very poor signal to noise ratio. Looks like worse than -30dB. Phil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous. • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9 • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others. The Original CentOS 3 release did not even have a ZERO release. We didn't finish it until 3.1 had been out for some time and we released 3.1 as our first release. That first release happened (for 3.1) on 3.19.2004: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2004-March/15.html The Red Hat 3.0 release happened on October 23, 2003. That is 5 months. The 4.0 release cycle and the 5.0 release cycle was much better because the Beta and RC releases were much closer in time and content to the actual released ISOs and we were able to build the first release version on our beta. This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the existing infrastructure to build on because we can not build on a CentOS 4 or CentOS 5 machine because of the changing of MD5SUM in the RPMs themselves. Secondly, the distribution will not build on the Beta (much like the 3.x release and UNLIKE the 4.0 and 5.0 releases). Not only that, but upstream used many non released packages to build on ... packages we can not see or get. Now, because of those things and because we choose to stop work on 6.0 to build out 5.6 and 4.9, the 6.0 release is late. We do not need a discussion of how bad CentOS sucks every week on this list. If you like CentOS, use it ... if you like SL then use that. This list is for the CentOS distribution .. it is not for how to use SL or how to migrate to SL. SL is a great product and if people want to use it then I am all for it ... however, talk about it on their mailing list, not ours. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous. • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9 • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. OH, and most people take off Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's day vacations, so the release of 5.6 and 6.0 are very close when you take into account that usually most people take off 2-4 weeks of the time between Mid November and the first week in January. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/12/2011 8:37 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty comments about how nothing changes. I think that will change to the extent that the project changes are visible. Thank you for posting all the links. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/12/2011 05:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradburymark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the existing infrastructure to build on because we can not build on a CentOS 4 or CentOS 5 machine because of the changing of MD5SUM in the RPMs themselves. And changing compression payload to XZ. [...snip...] We do not need a discussion of how bad CentOS sucks every week on this list. +1, It makes following the list harder and time consuming for both centos users and developers. -- Athmane Madjoudj RHCE ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 09:49 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote: It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Johnny, don't let this type of comment upset you as: Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestions Keep up the great work - Thanks +1 Louis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote: But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ... bug number please -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote: Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. Why? seems like a valid point to me. But at that time there should only be one point release on the table, instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time? I think you are confusing overlap with simultaneous. • 2011-02-16: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4.9 • 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6 • 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month before 4.9 Hardly qualifies at the same time unless you consider 3 months to be essentially the same time. Same time frame, if you want to be technical. As we've seen, work started on CentOS 6 and was suspended while the developers worked on 4.9 and 5.6. So, during the same time frame, two point releases and a major release all needed to be done. Sorry I didn't carefully choose my words or go into lawyer speak mode. And, has been noted, Scientific Linux gave preference to 6.0 and, as of yet, still have not completed 5.6. It's not often that either development team gets hit with a triple whammy like this. Scientific Linux chose one path, CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to agree with CentOS' choice here. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote: But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ... bug number please Jeff_S knows. He filed a bunch at upstream bugzilla requesting the release of missing srpms. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote: On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote: But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ... bug number please Jeff_S knows. He filed a bunch at upstream bugzilla requesting the release of missing srpms. upstream unreleased SRPMs are a different kettle of fish -- I mis-understood you to be indicating that the CentOS SRPM rollout was incomplete. My error Thank you -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On May 12, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to agree with CentOS' choice here. +1 - aurf ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:34 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: On Thursday, May 12, 2011 06:23:52 AM Christopher Chan wrote: 6.04-10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04. I did 6.06 - 8.04 - 10.04, and it broke. Badly. Ahem. With apt-get dist-upgrade or do-release-upgrade? Things break with apt...do-release-upgrade apparently has some extra logic to not break things... Upgrades are difficult problems to solve, and at the moment I don't know of any distribution (that claims upgradability) that gets it completely right for all the cases I've tried. Not even Debian? The one box I ran Debian on was somewhat unusual, and I lost SMP capability on the box upgrading the one time I did. The box is a DEC AlphaServer 2100 (Sable), and Sable SMP is hard to get these days; the last Debian kernel I know of that supported it was a 2.2 series kernel.. oh. Ah well, I hoped to see some response as I have not ever used Debian yet. Looking more like I'm going to do at least one, and possibly more, SPARCs on Debian, I'll get a little more experience with it then. I'd rather do CentOS, and be consistent across servers in terms of administration Then we can know for sure that Ubuntu really mucked things up and therefore their special upgrade tool. On the OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana side of things, I have not had problems. And you get a complete rollback option too as a bonus. Rollbacks would be good. Maybe after btrfs becomes stable and standard... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:31 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: On May 12, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote: CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to agree with CentOS' choice here. +1 I think *both* distros made the right choice. :) CentOS and SL handle security updates differently. CentOS's choice was right for CentOS because the delivery of security updates provided by 5.6 was more urgent for existing 5.x users than getting a non-existing new major release out. SL's choice was right for SL because they backport security updates. This is similar to what upstream's EUS (Extended Update Support) provides -- one can stay at a point release (like 5.4) for a period of time security fixes are available. So doing 6.0 first is not a concern for 5.x users. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/12/11, Phil Schaffner philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote: Apparently they did admit and it does change: https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347forum=53 Late breaking news: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/67 http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/69 This is really nice and it's good to see that the devs did take all those feedback into consideration and did something to make the process more visible. As for SL vs CentOS choices, I'd agree both teams did the right thing if only because of how I'm using them. I get to update my existing C5.5s yet at the same time I could use SL6 to begin testing for upcoming deployment as well as troubleshoot potential issues I had with running KVM. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 09:17:39 PM Craig White wrote: Upstream released exactly 6 months ago and still nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change. Please read the CentOS-devel list and IRC channel. There are some changes going on WRT visibility of the process, and time will tell if that sticks. My gut feel, not being one of the developers doing this, is that once the package build order and buildroots are figured out for 6.0 that 6.1 should be far less work. But I reserve the right to be wrong. How long it will take is of course anyone's guess; after all, it's been quite a while since 5.6's release, and SL, as fast as they were with 6.0, doesn't have a 5.6 full release out (beta 2 is due this Friday, but that's a beta and not a production release. Of course, they've also backported security fixes where possible from 5.6 back to 5.5, but that's part of their policy, plan, and procedures). To get these things right takes time. CentOS spent the time up front on 5.6 and 4.9, and both of those were released non-beta before SL released those versions; SL has since released 4.9. Both projects are doing a fantastic job of trying to nail the proverbial blob of gelatin to the wall, and I've hesitated comparing them in any way, simply because I don't want to disparage either project. And the two projects are not in competition. And neither project has a fully visible buildsystem. In my case, I have essentially three choices: 1.) Use SL 6; 2.) Wait on C6; 3.) Buy RHEL6. All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor CentOS will be as fast on updates as choice 3. There are boxes I'm possibly going with SL, but my servers are likely to remain CentOS, unless and until I can get funding to purchase RHEL (which, since it's a subscription, must be purchased out of opex funding). But I fully realize that if I want a fully supported product in the EL space I'm going to have to pay for it, either with RHEL or Oracle or SuSE. Otherwise I'm going to be happy with what I get, even if that's late. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: In my case, I have essentially three choices: 1.) Use SL 6; 2.) Wait on C6; 3.) Buy RHEL6. All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor CentOS will be as fast on updates as choice 3. There are boxes I'm possibly going with SL, but my servers are likely to remain CentOS, unless and until I can get funding to purchase RHEL (which, since it's a subscription, must be purchased out of opex funding). But I fully realize that if I want a fully supported product in the EL space I'm going to have to pay for it, either with RHEL or Oracle or SuSE. Individual/personal support is one thing, timely distro updates is something else. With limited experience, I'm beginning to think ubuntu LTS would be a player in the latter space. I've always been a fan of the coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4. Admittedly, not as many locally configured apps as on my Centos boxes, but it all still seemed to be working after the major-version over-the-network upgrade. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 01:51:08 PM Les Mikesell wrote: I've always been a fan of the coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4. You must not have many PPA's enabled. And you must not use PostgreSQL, which won't painlessly upgrade on anything. Admittedly, not as many locally configured apps as on my Centos boxes, but it all still seemed to be working after the major-version over-the-network upgrade. I've had the opposite experience with several clients, using Ubuntu as a desktop, not a server. I've had a few issues with servers, too. Timely updating takes effort; either I pay with money for upstream's binaries or I pay with time for either upstream's source RPMs (which can be delayed) or a rebuild's binaries. Or I pay with transition cost to a different distribution. Those are the choices. TANSTAAFL. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/11/2011 3:18 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 01:51:08 PM Les Mikesell wrote: I've always been a fan of the coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4. You must not have many PPA's enabled. And you must not use PostgreSQL, which won't painlessly upgrade on anything. Automatically doing the dump/load (and magically finding the space for it) for version changes that need it would be a lot to ask. Admittedly, not as many locally configured apps as on my Centos boxes, but it all still seemed to be working after the major-version over-the-network upgrade. I've had the opposite experience with several clients, using Ubuntu as a desktop, not a server. I've had a few issues with servers, too. With the LTS versions? One of mine was a laptop where centos didn't see the wifi adapter and I had it set up to either dual boot or run under vmware player. And I was surprised that after doing the update under vmware it still came up fine when booted natively and only asked to reconfigure the X setup. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
[drifting farther off-topic] On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 04:34:49 PM Les Mikesell wrote: On 5/11/2011 3:18 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: And you must not use PostgreSQL, which won't painlessly upgrade on anything. Automatically doing the dump/load (and magically finding the space for it) for version changes that need it would be a lot to ask. Yes, I know. Tried. I've had a few issues with [Ubuntu] servers, too. With the LTS versions? Yes. One upgrade I did from C4 to C5 (with upgradeany) was smoother than the last LTS upgrade I tried. I liken the C5 - C6 upgrade path as trying to take a Ubuntu LTS 6.06 to a 10.04; which path I tried, and failed, to get working. In one case it was with a Dell laptop that came with Ubuntu from Dell, and that is supported by Dell with Ubuntu. Sound quit (known issue), wireless went funky. One 'accidental' (client-initiated) upgrade from 8.04 to 10.04 lost keyboard and mouse after gdm got control. And even with Dell's that have RHEL support, I've seen issues with CentOS upgrades; but, then again, neither CentOS nor RHEL ( nor SL) support upgrading. Upgrades are difficult problems to solve, and at the moment I don't know of any distribution (that claims upgradability) that gets it completely right for all the cases I've tried. The CentOS path (it's not supported, but if you're brave and know exactly what you're doing there is upgradeany to let you shoot yourself in the foot) I feel is the correct one. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change. Apparently they did admit and it does change: https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347forum=53 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Mathieu Baudier wrote on 05/11/2011 04:59 PM: nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change. Apparently they did admit and it does change: https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347forum=53 Late breaking news: http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/67 http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/69 Phil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/10/2011 08:12 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Alain Péan wrote: The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Le 09/05/2011 18:36, Benjamin Smith a écrit : On Saturday, May 07, 2011 11:52:21 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many changes of how thing work. Thankfully, the only in-place upgrades I'll really consider is to cross-grade SL6 to C6. I've started testing with SL6 and will happily report to everyone how the cross-grade goes as soon as C6 is out! -Ben Hi, The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Alain -- == Alain Péan - LPP/CNRS Administrateur Système/Réseau Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas - UMR 7648 Observatoire de Saint-Maur 4, av de Neptune, Bat. A 94100 Saint-Maur des Fossés Tel : 01-45-11-42-39 - Fax : 01-48-89-44-33 == ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Alain Péan wrote: The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Alain Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Alain Péan wrote: The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 12:13 +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Alain Péan wrote: The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Alain Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 Considering that it took them 3 months to get out the 5.6 update and that upstream is adding packages that weren't ready when 6.0 was released, I would think that one month is highly optimistic but two things are certain. Upstream released exactly 6 months ago and still nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:12 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: Alain Péan wrote: The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ? And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would take no more than 1 month ? exactly, and there are additional packages in 6.1 that weren't ready when 6.0 was released. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 11:52:21 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many changes of how thing work. Thankfully, the only in-place upgrades I'll really consider is to cross-grade SL6 to C6. I've started testing with SL6 and will happily report to everyone how the cross-grade goes as soon as C6 is out! -Ben -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Sat, 7 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many changes of how thing work. In local testing built from the anaconda and related sources that will become CentOS 6, the offer to upgrade an existing install is made during a media based install. As I was not interested in upgrading a random drive pulled from my 'scratch pool', I did a wipe and fresh partition and install ;) Particularly difficult to me seems to be the 'ext4' conversion from lower numbered versions with an 'in place' upgrade -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/07/2011 09:00 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote: I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on their experiences using Scientific Linux? I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout over summer, before Aug 1, we need to start regression testing now!) I was once a WhiteBox Enterprise Linux user and switched to CentOS 4 without issue, and am assuming that I might need to do something similar if we decide to go this route. Any feedback is appreciated! I had to complete a new VM Host machine before CentOS-6 was ready, so I used SL-6 as the underpinnings. It simply worked, once I ironed out a couple of unrelated hardware issues. It auto-updates and lets me know when that's been done, but it doesn't reboot unless I want to, so there's little risk in allowing the updates. Auto-update can be disabled if you prefer. So far it has been flawless. It's managing two very large software RAID-6 arrays and 7 Guest VMs on a dual-Xeon Supermicro motherboard. All of the VM Guest OS's are CentOS-5.6 which works well for my applications. I may or may not upgrade the Guests to C6, depending on need. CentOS has been so reliable that I'm reluctant to move to a different platform. I've used Ubuntu Server and it works well, but I'm more familiar with the RHEL way of doing things so I'll stick with CentOS. One thing I don't know much about is an in-place upgrade of C5 to C6. There are some under-the-hood differences that must be taken into account, which I haven't looked into. YMMV, Chuck ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Chuck Munro wrote: On 05/07/2011 09:00 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote: I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on their experiences using Scientific Linux? I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout over summer, before Aug 1, we need to start regression testing now!) I was once a WhiteBox Enterprise Linux user and switched to CentOS 4 without issue, and am assuming that I might need to do something similar if we decide to go this route. Any feedback is appreciated! I had to complete a new VM Host machine before CentOS-6 was ready, so I used SL-6 as the underpinnings. It simply worked, once I ironed out a couple of unrelated hardware issues. It auto-updates and lets me know when that's been done, but it doesn't reboot unless I want to, so there's little risk in allowing the updates. Auto-update can be disabled if you prefer. So far it has been flawless. It's managing two very large software RAID-6 arrays and 7 Guest VMs on a dual-Xeon Supermicro motherboard. All of the VM Guest OS's are CentOS-5.6 which works well for my applications. I may or may not upgrade the Guests to C6, depending on need. CentOS has been so reliable that I'm reluctant to move to a different platform. I've used Ubuntu Server and it works well, but I'm more familiar with the RHEL way of doing things so I'll stick with CentOS. One thing I don't know much about is an in-place upgrade of C5 to C6. There are some under-the-hood differences that must be taken into account, which I haven't looked into. YMMV, Chuck in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many changes of how thing work. Ljubomir ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on their experiences using Scientific Linux? I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout over summer, before Aug 1, we need to start regression testing now!) I was once a WhiteBox Enterprise Linux user and switched to CentOS 4 without issue, and am assuming that I might need to do something similar if we decide to go this route. Any feedback is appreciated! -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on their experiences using Scientific Linux? Fresh install of 6.0 without a hitch a while ago. Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. //me *** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated** ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 05/06/2011 01:31 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote: I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on their experiences using Scientific Linux? I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout over summer, before Aug 1, we need to start regression testing now!) I was once a WhiteBox Enterprise Linux user and switched to CentOS 4 without issue, and am assuming that I might need to do something similar if we decide to go this route. Any feedback is appreciated! We are getting fairly close to having a tree ready to send to QA. The goal for sending the tree is 10 May 2011. It might not happen before then, but it should happen within a week of that date. Disclaimer: We may have something that fails to work and throws a monkey wrench in the plans ... but it is getting close. I would expect once it is in QA that we can release in 2-4 weeks (maximum) from that point. But the real question is, do you want to use EL6. I personally would only roll out testing stuff on EL 6 at this point (be it SL 6.0, Oracle UBL 6.0, RHEL 6.0, etc.). CentOS 5 still has 3 years of normal support before its retirement date, and is much more mature at this point (IMHO). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Friday, May 06, 2011 11:44:40 AM Johnny Hughes wrote: But the real question is, do you want to use EL6. I personally would only roll out testing stuff on EL 6 at this point (be it SL 6.0, Oracle UBL 6.0, RHEL 6.0, etc.). CentOS 5 still has 3 years of normal support before its retirement date, and is much more mature at this point (IMHO). Yes, I'm pretty sure I want to switch to EL 6. Way back when, I was fairly aggressive switching to EL 4, and have enjoyed a very long, stable period as a result. I don't really want to switch frequently, I'd rather shake it all out in one fell swoop and then not worry about it again for as long as possible. At this point, I'm likely to begin testing with SL 6, and then switch to CentOS (if it's available in time) prior to actual rollout in a few month's time. I recognize (and appreciate!) CentOS' dedication to quality before punctuality, even if it is inconvenient at times. -Ben -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:31, Benjamin Smith li...@benjamindsmith.comwrote: I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout over summer, before Aug 1, we need to start regression testing now!) So buy RHEL. -- Kind Regards, Christopher J. Buckley ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout over summer, before Aug 1, we need to start regression testing now!) Hi ! Here, we have a cluster of 8 nodes that we just deployed in RHEL 6 (the real thing, 14 k$/year). And with that, came other servers (router, test servers, developpement servers), and I wanted to have also the same OS. While waiting for C6, I installed an unsubscribed version of RHEL6, but it was troublesome to install packeges. So for those servers that were already installed, I switched them to SL6 without having to re-install, and it went great without a pain. I installed some other servers with SL6, and didn't noticed any difference. I plan to switch those SL6 servers back to C6 when it's out, for uniformity reasons, I don't anticipate any problems then. Regards, ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
On 5/6/2011 1:44 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: But the real question is, do you want to use EL6. I personally would only roll out testing stuff on EL 6 at this point (be it SL 6.0, Oracle UBL 6.0, RHEL 6.0, etc.). CentOS 5 still has 3 years of normal support before its retirement date, and is much more mature at this point (IMHO). In this business, mature is a synonym for ancient. But the bigger issue is that 3 years out may not cover the lifespan of a newly deployed server that you'd really like to keep running with nothing more complicated than 'yum update'. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
Original Message Subject: Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux) From: Nicolas Ross rossnick-li...@cybercat.ca To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Date: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:38:42 PM While waiting for C6, I installed an unsubscribed version of RHEL6, but it was troublesome to install packeges. So for those servers that were already installed, I switched them to SL6 without having to re-install, and it went great without a pain. Did you perform a yum reinstall \* or did you just update your repos? --Blake ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
While waiting for C6, I installed an unsubscribed version of RHEL6, but it was troublesome to install packeges. So for those servers that were already installed, I switched them to SL6 without having to re-install, and it went great without a pain. Did you perform a yum reinstall \* or did you just update your repos? I juste updated the repo and uninstalled some redhat packages : rpm -e rhnlib rhn-client-tools rhn-setup yum-rhn-plugin rhn-check rhnsd redhat-indexhtml redhat-lsb rpm -e --nodeps redhat-release-server-6Server rpm -hiv sl-release-6.0-6.0.1.x86_64.rpm rpm -e --nodeps redhat-logos rpm -hiv redhat-logos-60.0.14-1.sl6.1.noarch.rpm I did a test for yum reinstall \*, and saw that 565 out of the 623 packages were to be re-installed, so I didn't want to get into problems with a remote server, I left it that way. I will do a reinstall on a server I got at the office, and I'll report back. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
