Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Nathan Duehr wrote: >> >> True, but pretty much everything was written wrong to begin with, back >> in the day when everyone thought bad guys just shouldn't be allowed to >> use the network. And the fixes are trickling in bit by bit. > > Been hearing that “back in the day” excuse since Novell / IPX was big. Wash, > rinse, repeat. > > There have always been “bad guys” on networks. > > That excuse will still be used long after I’m dead… but an excuse, it most > certainly is. It was made official in 1987 with the first known instance of an internet worm that exploited sendmail. The person who released the viral code was held responsible rather than the vendors that shipped the obvious vulnerability - even the commercial vendors that repackaged it and charged for it. Thus the next several decades of taking no responsibility for shipping horrible vulnerabilities was set in motion. And of course there are an assortment of conspiracy theories about how some of the back doors were intentional. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On 11/4/2014 11:32 AM, Nathan Duehr wrote: Been hearing that “back in the day” excuse since Novell / IPX was big. Wash, rinse, repeat. which would have been 1980s to mid 90s. the fundamental IP application protocols like FTP, Telnet date back to the late 60s and early 1970s, concurrent with the development of TCP/IP and ARPANET. There /was/ no 'network' before this for 'bad guys' to be on. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
> > True, but pretty much everything was written wrong to begin with, back > in the day when everyone thought bad guys just shouldn't be allowed to > use the network. And the fixes are trickling in bit by bit. Been hearing that “back in the day” excuse since Novell / IPX was big. Wash, rinse, repeat. There have always been “bad guys” on networks. That excuse will still be used long after I’m dead… but an excuse, it most certainly is. You can find all sorts of examples of things written long after Internet security was a known/given in the kernel, that had to be replaced. Same with just about every piece of application software. -- Nate Duehr denverpi...@me.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Nathan Duehr wrote: >> Things break and need maintenance. If your services can't tolerate >> that, you need more redundancy. As for the OS updates (which are >> only one of the many things that can break...), they are 'pretty well' >> vetted by upstream so breakage is rare and your odds are better >> installing them than not. But you don't have to reboot right now - >> schedule it for a convenient time. > > Technically a kernel patch isn’t for something “that broke”, it’s for > something “that was written wrong to begin with”… > > Just to be pedantic. True, but pretty much everything was written wrong to begin with, back in the day when everyone thought bad guys just shouldn't be allowed to use the network. And the fixes are trickling in bit by bit. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
> Things break and need maintenance. If your services can't tolerate > that, you need more redundancy. As for the OS updates (which are > only one of the many things that can break...), they are 'pretty well' > vetted by upstream so breakage is rare and your odds are better > installing them than not. But you don't have to reboot right now - > schedule it for a convenient time. Technically a kernel patch isn’t for something “that broke”, it’s for something “that was written wrong to begin with”… Just to be pedantic. -- Nate Duehr denverpi...@me.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:21 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/30/2014 1:07 AM, Cliff Pratt wrote: > >> I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were >> hatchlings. >> At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and >> powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days? >> >> We soon went to 24x7, but the reason was not because the users wanted it. >> It was because the engineers and systems programmers wanted time with no >> users. >> > > main reason I remember for keeping stuff running was, it was more reliable > if the temperature was relatively constant... temperature flucations led > to more hardware failures than any other source input variable. > > Yes, that too. We had quite a few cases of machine mondayitis. Cheers, Cliff ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On 29/10/14 15:32, Mark Felder wrote: > > I don't understand the direction that has been taken. Anything that runs > on 6.0 should run flawlessly on 6.6. Period. I agree, and the way to help make that happen ( and to help document and track down breakage before this gets released ), is to submit tests to the t_functional suite : https://git.centos.org/summary/?r=sig-core/t_functional.git -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Thu, 2014-10-30 at 21:07 +1300, Cliff Pratt wrote: > I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were hatchlings. > At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and > powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days? In my early days, the entire system was powered down before the last person went home. Regards, Paul. England, EU. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 08:00:16AM -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > If I remember Unix world, patching almost never led to downtime and almost > always could be accomplished in presence of users logged in. RHEL has kpatch: http://rhelblog.redhat.com/2014/02/26/kpatch/ Technologies like kpatch, ksplice, kGraft, etc. will make it so you don't have to reboot to get kernel patches. However, I'm more concerned with updating software like glibc, openssl, nss, etc. for running processes. It doesn't matter if you're running Linux or FreeBSD or other UNIXes, if you update the underlying software applications and libraries under the user's processes, there's always a chance (and quite likely) that something will break. -- Jonathan Billings ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
Once upon a time, Valeri Galtsev said: > If I remember Unix world, patching almost never led to downtime and almost > always could be accomplished in presence of users logged in. I think that's a rose-colored glasses look in the rear-view mirror. The "traditional" Unix flavors I dealt with (Solaris and DEC Unix) required reboots; DEC Unix pretty much required going to single-user mode to even install a patch kit. When it wasn't required, it was highly recommended by the documentation. -- Chris Adams ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Thu, October 30, 2014 3:01 am, Cliff Pratt wrote: > That's exactly what I mean. It's not a matter of "starting into the > Windows > world". My point was that Windows admins have not become obsessed with > "uptime", and hence given their users the expectation of 100% > availability. > > I'm all for being responsible to users - and that means patching and if > that means some downtime, If I remember Unix world, patching almost never led to downtime and almost always could be accomplished in presence of users logged in. Valeri then the users in general would not be put out, > if their expectations had not been raised to expect no downtime. > > Cheers, > > Cliff > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Valeri Galtsev > > wrote: > >> >> On Wed, October 29, 2014 6:32 pm, Cliff Pratt wrote: >> > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Valeri Galtsev >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows >> >> >> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal >> >> >> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As >> we, >> >> >> normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update >> >> kernel, >> >> >> they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are >> left >> >> >> running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as >> >> >> stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) >> >> > >> >> > What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... >> >> >> >> I'm sorry, apart from my laptop, I also run servers. And services are >> >> supposed to be up 24/7. And a bunch of people are always logged in... >> >> You >> >> do the math. >> >> >> >> This is a corner that system administrators have allowed themselves >> to >> >> be >> > painted into. It's not a law of nature. Civilized organisations will >> > always >> > allow a maintenance Window. In the Windows world it is not an issue. >> > Servers can be rebooted with much more freedom than in the Linux/Unix >> > world. >> > >> >> Yes, indeed. Those are blasted Unix sysadmins (Hm, I flatter myself by >> thinking of being one too) that push themselves into being too >> responsible >> to their users... No, I don't think Unix admins will start into the >> direction of Windows world, sorry. I don't even like Windows world >> mentioned as an example for Unix world! (Don't take me too literally, >> everybody welcomes good things "other worlds" have...) >> >> Valeri >> >> >> Valeri Galtsev >> Sr System Administrator >> Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics >> Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics >> University of Chicago >> Phone: 773-702-4247 >> >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
Bending a spoon 100 times it will break.. Keep temp the same hot or cold no bends.. thus the tracks do not break... Its not 22Deg Celsius or 28Deg it is keeping the temp the same, as the temp changes the metal expands and contracts.. Regards Michael Cole On Thursday, October 30, 2014 1:21:22 AM John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/30/2014 1:07 AM, Cliff Pratt wrote: > > I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were hatchlings. > > At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and > > powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days? > > > > We soon went to 24x7, but the reason was not because the users wanted it. > > It was because the engineers and systems programmers wanted time with no > > users. > > main reason I remember for keeping stuff running was, it was more > reliable if the temperature was relatively constant... temperature > flucations led to more hardware failures than any other source input > variable. > > > > -- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On 10/30/2014 1:07 AM, Cliff Pratt wrote: I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were hatchlings. At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days? We soon went to 24x7, but the reason was not because the users wanted it. It was because the engineers and systems programmers wanted time with no users. main reason I remember for keeping stuff running was, it was more reliable if the temperature was relatively constant... temperature flucations led to more hardware failures than any other source input variable. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
I used to work with IBM mainframes back when the dinosaurs were hatchlings. At one place I worked the machine was powered off on Friday at 5pm and powered up at 7am on Monday! Can you imagine that these days? We soon went to 24x7, but the reason was not because the users wanted it. It was because the engineers and systems programmers wanted time with no users. Cheers, Cliff On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:57 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 10/29/2014 4:40 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> Yes, indeed. Those are blasted Unix sysadmins (Hm, I flatter myself by >> thinking of being one too) that push themselves into being too responsible >> to their users... No, I don't think Unix admins will start into the >> direction of Windows world, sorry. I don't even like Windows world >> mentioned as an example for Unix world! (Don't take me too literally, >> everybody welcomes good things "other worlds" have...) >> > > in my enterprise world, production systems are fully redundant, and have > staging servers running identical software configurations. all upgrades > and upgrade procedures are tested on staging before being deployed in > production.quite often, the staging systems double as the Disaster > Recovery systems, but thats another story. virtually all production systems > either have a schedulable downtime (2am sunday morning?), or support > rolling upgrades with no downtime (such as our 24/7 factory operations > where downtime == no product). > > personally, I'm very glad I work in development, where our informal SLA is > more like 9-9 5 days/week (developers like to work late). > > > -- > john r pierce 37N 122W > somewhere on the middle of the left coast > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
That's exactly what I mean. It's not a matter of "starting into the Windows world". My point was that Windows admins have not become obsessed with "uptime", and hence given their users the expectation of 100% availability. I'm all for being responsible to users - and that means patching and if that means some downtime, then the users in general would not be put out, if their expectations had not been raised to expect no downtime. Cheers, Cliff On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Wed, October 29, 2014 6:32 pm, Cliff Pratt wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Valeri Galtsev > > > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote: > >> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> > > >> >> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows > >> >> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal > >> >> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, > >> >> normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update > >> kernel, > >> >> they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left > >> >> running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as > >> >> stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) > >> > > >> > What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... > >> > >> I'm sorry, apart from my laptop, I also run servers. And services are > >> supposed to be up 24/7. And a bunch of people are always logged in... > >> You > >> do the math. > >> > >> This is a corner that system administrators have allowed themselves to > >> be > > painted into. It's not a law of nature. Civilized organisations will > > always > > allow a maintenance Window. In the Windows world it is not an issue. > > Servers can be rebooted with much more freedom than in the Linux/Unix > > world. > > > > Yes, indeed. Those are blasted Unix sysadmins (Hm, I flatter myself by > thinking of being one too) that push themselves into being too responsible > to their users... No, I don't think Unix admins will start into the > direction of Windows world, sorry. I don't even like Windows world > mentioned as an example for Unix world! (Don't take me too literally, > everybody welcomes good things "other worlds" have...) > > Valeri > > > Valeri Galtsev > Sr System Administrator > Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics > Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics > University of Chicago > Phone: 773-702-4247 > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
> > in my enterprise world, production systems are fully redundant, and have > staging servers running identical software configurations. all upgrades > and upgrade procedures are tested on staging before being deployed in > production.quite often, the staging systems double as the Disaster > Recovery systems, but thats another story. virtually all production systems > either have a schedulable downtime (2am sunday morning?), or support > rolling upgrades with no downtime (such as our 24/7 factory operations > where downtime == no product). > > personally, I'm very glad I work in development, where our informal SLA is > more like 9-9 5 days/week (developers like to work late). Sounds like you have a dream job John! At the very least for a company that spends money on proper hardware! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On 10/29/2014 4:40 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: Yes, indeed. Those are blasted Unix sysadmins (Hm, I flatter myself by thinking of being one too) that push themselves into being too responsible to their users... No, I don't think Unix admins will start into the direction of Windows world, sorry. I don't even like Windows world mentioned as an example for Unix world! (Don't take me too literally, everybody welcomes good things "other worlds" have...) in my enterprise world, production systems are fully redundant, and have staging servers running identical software configurations. all upgrades and upgrade procedures are tested on staging before being deployed in production.quite often, the staging systems double as the Disaster Recovery systems, but thats another story. virtually all production systems either have a schedulable downtime (2am sunday morning?), or support rolling upgrades with no downtime (such as our 24/7 factory operations where downtime == no product). personally, I'm very glad I work in development, where our informal SLA is more like 9-9 5 days/week (developers like to work late). -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, October 29, 2014 6:32 pm, Cliff Pratt wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Valeri Galtsev > > wrote: > >> >> On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote: >> > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> > >> >> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows >> >> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal >> >> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, >> >> normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update >> kernel, >> >> they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left >> >> running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as >> >> stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) >> > >> > What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... >> >> I'm sorry, apart from my laptop, I also run servers. And services are >> supposed to be up 24/7. And a bunch of people are always logged in... >> You >> do the math. >> >> This is a corner that system administrators have allowed themselves to >> be > painted into. It's not a law of nature. Civilized organisations will > always > allow a maintenance Window. In the Windows world it is not an issue. > Servers can be rebooted with much more freedom than in the Linux/Unix > world. > Yes, indeed. Those are blasted Unix sysadmins (Hm, I flatter myself by thinking of being one too) that push themselves into being too responsible to their users... No, I don't think Unix admins will start into the direction of Windows world, sorry. I don't even like Windows world mentioned as an example for Unix world! (Don't take me too literally, everybody welcomes good things "other worlds" have...) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:12 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote: > > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > > >> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows > >> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal > >> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, > >> normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update kernel, > >> they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left > >> running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as > >> stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) > > > > What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... > > I'm sorry, apart from my laptop, I also run servers. And services are > supposed to be up 24/7. And a bunch of people are always logged in... You > do the math. > > This is a corner that system administrators have allowed themselves to be painted into. It's not a law of nature. Civilized organisations will always allow a maintenance Window. In the Windows world it is not an issue. Servers can be rebooted with much more freedom than in the Linux/Unix world. Cheers, Cliff ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >>> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows >>> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal >>> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, >>> normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update kernel, >>> they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left >>> running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as >>> stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) >> >> What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... > > I'm sorry, apart from my laptop, I also run servers. And services are > supposed to be up 24/7. And a bunch of people are always logged in... You > do the math. Things break and need maintenance. If your services can't tolerate that, you need more redundancy. As for the OS updates (which are only one of the many things that can break...), they are 'pretty well' vetted by upstream so breakage is rare and your odds are better installing them than not. But you don't have to reboot right now - schedule it for a convenient time. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:18 pm, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 29.10.2014 um 22:12 schrieb Valeri Galtsev: >> On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote: >>> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >>> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update kernel, they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) >>> >>> What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... >> >> I'm sorry, apart from my laptop, I also run servers. And services are >> supposed to be up 24/7. And a bunch of people are always logged in... >> You >> do the math > > you where the one calling kernel updates necessity, so just ignore them > or face the truth - your choice > > so what - if you need 24/7 than invest time and money and build up a > infrsatsructure wehre you can reboot a node for updates without taking > the services offline or just realize that 15-20 seconds downtime in the > middle of the night doing way less harm then ignore security updates > Yep, that's exactly what I did. I do not feel justified to use Department's money (for extra hardware), so I invested just my time. And built servers based on FreeBSD, services run in different jails, etc. So, you can imagine how much I am hit by the need to reboot into updated Linux kernel, do you? Note, you will not find Linux kernel running of FreeBSD box (just teasing ;-) Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, October 29, 2014 4:02 pm, Beartooth wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > >> ... Basically, if one thinks he knows >> more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal >> people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, >> normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update kernel, >> they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left >> running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as >> stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) > > What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... I'm sorry, apart from my laptop, I also run servers. And services are supposed to be up 24/7. And a bunch of people are always logged in... You do the math. Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:44:42 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > ... Basically, if one thinks he knows > more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal > people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, > normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update kernel, > they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left > running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as > stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) What? Stressful?? Fedora??? Naaahhh ... -- Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:28 am, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 29.10.2014 um 15:22 schrieb Valeri Galtsev: >> >> On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote: >>> On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote: I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages! Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some of us don't appreciate how much work the developers do. Strength to their arms, and many heartfelt thanks! >>> +100 >> >> Me too. I was [mistakenly, apparently] always considering 5.[n+1], >> 6.[m+1] >> just re-spins, thus providing latest packages with _backported_ security >> patches/bugfixes, aimed at providing installation media that is not >> entail >> millions of updates. "Releases" with newer versions, drivers included in >> kernel shuffled, the new kernel (without any necessity in it) which >> causes >> hassle to reboot the box... This all effectively defeats the >> "Enterprise" >> portion of the name of the system, doesn't it? > > if you think there is no necessity for the new kernel who is forcing you > to reboot? I like that "If" clause of yours... Basically, if one thinks he knows more than system vendor, he is just schizophrenic. And we, normal people, do give schizophrenics a privilege to be on their own. As we, normal people know that if the distro maintainers had to update kernel, they had a reason (otherwise, something else breaks). So, we are left running _this_ system, even though it's stressful, still not as stressful as running "bleeding edge" fedora, right? ;-) Valeri > "enterprise OS" is nothing about never ever reboot, it's > about API/ABI stability > > Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
Once upon a time, Bowie Bailey said: > RHEL, and therefore CentOS, does not support maintaining a specific > point release version. That's not true for RHEL. A subscription can be switched to an extended x.y.z release train (but that's a "you get what you pay for" kind of thing; that level of extended support is time consuming). -- Chris Adams ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On 10/29/2014 11:43 AM, Beartooth wrote: On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:22:35 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote: +100 Me too. I was [mistakenly, apparently] always considering 5.[n+1], 6.[m+1] just re-spins, thus providing latest packages with _backported_ security patches/bugfixes, aimed at providing installation media that is not entail millions of updates. "Releases" with newer versions, drivers included in kernel shuffled, the new kernel (without any necessity in it) which causes hassle to reboot the box... This all effectively defeats the "Enterprise" portion of the name of the system, doesn't it? Do not take it as me not being appreciative of the great job the distribution maintainers do. I'm just trying to give a view of us, "users" who have to deal with the consequences... Looking back over the list of packages installed, I notice that most end in "el6," but there are some with "el6_6." Does that mean she's now actually running 6.6 rather than 6.5? She is running CentOS 6 with all current updates. This currently equates to 6.6. RHEL, and therefore CentOS, does not support maintaining a specific point release version. Updating any CentOS 6 system will now result in an update to 6.6. It is possible to prevent the 6.6 updates from being installed, but this will leave you with no further updates (security or otherwise). I've been wondering when it would be best to switch to CentOS 7. Is there something like fedup in Fedora to do it, or is a fresh install the only way? There is a method to upgrade (there was a recent thread about it in this group), but the recommended method is to install from scratch. -- Bowie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014 09:22:35 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote: >> +100 >> > Me too. I was [mistakenly, apparently] always considering 5.[n+1], > 6.[m+1] just re-spins, thus providing latest packages with _backported_ security > patches/bugfixes, aimed at providing installation media that is not > entail millions of updates. "Releases" with newer versions, drivers > included in kernel shuffled, the new kernel (without any necessity in > it) which causes hassle to reboot the box... This all effectively > defeats the "Enterprise" portion of the name of the system, doesn't it? > > Do not take it as me not being appreciative of the great job the > distribution maintainers do. I'm just trying to give a view of us, > "users" who have to deal with the consequences... Looking back over the list of packages installed, I notice that most end in "el6," but there are some with "el6_6." Does that mean she's now actually running 6.6 rather than 6.5? I've been wondering when it would be best to switch to CentOS 7. Is there something like fedup in Fedora to do it, or is a fresh install the only way? -- Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014, at 09:22, Valeri Galtsev wrote: > > On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote: > > On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote: > >>I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've > >> been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages! > >> > >>Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some of us don't > >> appreciate how much work the developers do. > >> > >>Strength to their arms, and many heartfelt thanks! > > +100 > > > > Me too. I was [mistakenly, apparently] always considering 5.[n+1], > 6.[m+1] > just re-spins, thus providing latest packages with _backported_ security > patches/bugfixes, aimed at providing installation media that is not > entail > millions of updates. "Releases" with newer versions, drivers included in > kernel shuffled, the new kernel (without any necessity in it) which > causes > hassle to reboot the box... This all effectively defeats the "Enterprise" > portion of the name of the system, doesn't it? > I had a customer with a Violin SAN and they couldn't update their RHEL/CentOS servers any higher than a certain point release not because the driver broke, but because the rest of the provided glue broke. I can't recall the fine details, but I'm pretty sure it was a major change to udev in the middle of a major release. I don't understand the direction that has been taken. Anything that runs on 6.0 should run flawlessly on 6.6. Period. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On Wed, October 29, 2014 9:06 am, Steve Clark wrote: > On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote: >> I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've >> been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages! >> >> Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some of us don't >> appreciate how much work the developers do. >> >> Strength to their arms, and many heartfelt thanks! > +100 > Me too. I was [mistakenly, apparently] always considering 5.[n+1], 6.[m+1] just re-spins, thus providing latest packages with _backported_ security patches/bugfixes, aimed at providing installation media that is not entail millions of updates. "Releases" with newer versions, drivers included in kernel shuffled, the new kernel (without any necessity in it) which causes hassle to reboot the box... This all effectively defeats the "Enterprise" portion of the name of the system, doesn't it? Do not take it as me not being appreciative of the great job the distribution maintainers do. I'm just trying to give a view of us, "users" who have to deal with the consequences... Valeri Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
On 10/29/2014 10:02 AM, Beartooth wrote: I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages! Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some of us don't appreciate how much work the developers do. Strength to their arms, and many heartfelt thanks! +100 -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology 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
[CentOS] Wow! Double wow!
I'm running CentOS 6 (6.5 iirc) on my wife's machine, which I've been updating pretty much every day. Today yum got 425 packages! Somewhere a dam must have broken. Sometimes some of us don't appreciate how much work the developers do. Strength to their arms, and many heartfelt thanks! -- Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
