On 31 May 2011, at 20:01, "Dvorkin, Asya" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Currently, we are running our cell on CentOS, but looking into possibly > moving towards Scientific Linux. > > Would love to hear your opinions and recommendations. Being binary rebuilds of the same upstream source distribution, there are a lot of similarities between CentOS and SL. In the past, Cent OS were slightly quicker off the mark with new releases, and had fewer of the 64bit build dependency problems than SL. Recently, though, SL managed to get version 6 out of the door much faster than Cent OS, and their builds seem pretty solid. One thing I would warn about, however, is that SL ship their own openafs RPMs. These are significantly different from the RPMs shipped by openafs.org, having their own pathnames, configuration files and startup scripts. At some point we would really like to reconverge, but nobody has had the time to write the compatibility goo that is required. In the meantime, you should bear in mind that some of the documentation you read on the web may not apply to the SL RPMs. S. > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
