The VAR supports Apache on linux and IIS on Windows. We might ask them this again. Thanks. --dawn
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:33 PM, Daniel McGrath < dmcgr...@rocketsoftware.com> wrote: > Any reason you cannot do Apache on Windows? > ________________________________________ > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org < > u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org> on behalf of Dawn Wolthuis < > dw...@tincat-group.com> > Sent: Wednesday, 17 July 2013 8:26 PM > To: U2 Users List > Subject: Re: [U2] CentOS with Universe? > > Thanks to all who responded. There is plenty of wisdom in the sum of all of > these posts. We are nailing down costs from the hosting provider for each > option. It looks like Windows 2008 Standard is less expensive per month > than RHEL 6 with the hosting site we are using (primarily because of the > $500 annual cost for RHEL). My colleague uses his own perl scripts with > apache, so he is not excited about IIS. My only issue with IIS has to do > with poor experiences to date, but when I check the date, it is somewhere > around 2001. Perhaps I need not hold a grudge that long? cheers! --dawn > > > On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM, John Hester <jhes...@momtex.com> wrote: > > > Dawn, just to add my 0.02, I have a couple of production CentOS servers > > but run UV on RHEL. UV is the most mission-critical app we have and I > feel > > it would be too much of a risk to run it on an unsupported platform. > And I > > would take Tony's point that Linux has the exact same update headaches as > > Windows one step further and say that it's worse. I choose to run UV on > > RHEL because I rely heavily on custom UV integration with system > utilities > > like cron and open-source apps like postfix, cURL and wget. Installing > all > > available updates a la Windows on the RHEL UV box is something I'd never > > do, though, because the risk of breaking something is too high. To give > an > > example, I installed all the latest updates on the less mission-critical > of > > our CentOS servers a while back and it broke the freeRADIUS service we > use > > to authenticate wifi clients via Active Directory. Fortunately the other > > CentOS server is a backup freeRADIUS server, but it was still time > > consuming to fix. When RH or CentOS updates an app, any config files > > replaced are backed up in the current location with an extension of > > ".rpmnew". When freeRADIUS starts up it reads every config file in its > > directory regardless of name, so this totally borked the installation. > > Fixing it was a matter of opening both the old and new versions of all 7 > > replaced config files in a GUI text editor with diff capability and > > painstakingly merging the original config into the new files. I probably > > spent a couple of hours on it, and that was just one application. UV is > in > > use 24x7 and an outage like that on our UV server would be catastrophic. > > > > Having said that, I think a case could be made for running UV on CentOS > if > > the initial installation runs stably and you don't plan to patch it. I > > would thoroughly test every aspect of UV, but once you're certain it's > > stable, you aren't likely to need support if you don't break anything > going > > forward. Lack of patches sounds like a security risk on the face of it, > > but good security isn't a black and white issue. If no unnecessary > > services are listening on the box, no end users have direct access to the > > OS shell, and the box isn't directly open to the internet, it's pretty > > secure IMHO. RH may issue a ton of "critical" security updates for > various > > services, but if you're not running those services, or if a user needs OS > > shell access they don't have to execute a privilege escalation, those > > updates are irrelevant. There are lots of add'l security measures that > you > > can take to further protect the server, such as installing the free OSSEC > > intrusion detection utility from Trend Micro and running ssh on a > > non-default port. As Dan said, the question of whether or not to run UV > on > > an unsupported platform really depends on the risk tolerance of the > client > > where it's installed and how they're using it. It's not appropriate for > > our environment, but if someone else decides the cost savings outweigh > the > > risks for them after carefully considering both, I wouldn't necessarily > > tell them it's a bad idea. > > > > -John > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto: > > u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Daniel McGrath > > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:00 AM > > To: U2 Users List > > Subject: Re: [U2] CentOS with Universe? > > > > In Dawn's case, I agree with Tony. At larger scales though, support from > > RHEL isn't just bug fixes that CentOS gets eventually, but is also system > > configuration assistance for issues, particularly around performance. If > > you are not running a production server yourself, but are using it for > > development or support, then it is probably less of an issue. > > > > If you are running your core business on it 24/7, it's a different story. > > > > Dan McGrath > > Managing Director, U2 Servers Lab > > Rocket Software > > 4600 South Ulster Street · Suite 1100 · Denver, CO 80237 · USA > > T: +1 720 475 8098 · E: dmcgr...@rocketsoftware.com · W: > > u2.rocketsoftware.com > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org [mailto: > > u2-users-boun...@listserver.u2ug.org] On Behalf Of Tony Gravagno > > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2013 11:38 AM > > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > > Subject: Re: [U2] CentOS with Universe? > > > > > From: Dawn Wolthuis > > > We have a VAR who would prefer to load Universe and their application > > > on a supported platform, but we would prefer not to pay for RHEL 6. I > > > searched the list and found a few tidbits, but does > > anyone > > > have a good list of what changes might be required to successfully > > run > > > Universe 11.1 on CentOS? How much pain would we be introducing for > > > ourselves and our VAR, if they were willing to play along? > > > > Dawn, you have accurate responses from everyone: > > 1) Should be exactly the same. > > 2) Might not be. > > 3) There is risk involved. > > > > Personally I run CentOS whenever I need Linux. But it does have its own > > errors from time to time, and sometimes it takes a while to get them > fixed > > - just visit the CentOS forum and see what people are talking about. > That's > > the gamble we take for freeware. (It's only "free" if your time is > > worthless.) > > > > How much does RHEL Support help? Well, many systems I know never even > > update their RHEL systems. They install and then don't want to patch > > because it might mess up dependencies, forcing a reinstall. And RedHat > does > > the same themselves to an extent - they guarantee that their distro isn't > > volatile like Fedora - in part because they don't provide many updates to > > common FOSS after production. As an example, you need an update to > > something like cURL (v7.19 from the "current" RHEL6 yum update but v7.31 > in > > real world) you'll have to get it from somewhere other than RedHat, and > > that could break a lot of stuff. And because they bashed Windows for so > > many years about this (DLL HELL) before drinking the Linux Kool-Aid, > these > > folks are afraid to say Linux has exactly the same problems, or afraid to > > admit they don't update their system, or maybe they just don't know that > > their packages are a couple years old and unpatched. (No need for people > to > > jump in to reassure us that you update your personal system(s) - trading > > anecdotes doesn't change the fact that other people do things > differently.) > > > > But the real point here ... is that once U2 is working, and it "should" > > out of the box, then it "shouldn't" break, as long as you don't change > > anything. It's been around since 2010 and CentOS is right there with it > > now. The only time you could have issues is when U2 is certified over a > new > > RH release and CentOS hasn't caught up to them yet. The cost for not > being > > with a current RHEL release is that you won't be able to install a brand > > new OS/DBMS combo with confidence, you'll just have to wait a while for > the > > dust to settle. Now, what if you do get that brand new release of RH/UV > and > > it breaks. You need to wait for Rocket to work with RH anyway. So if > you're > > going to wait there anyway, why not just wait a little longer and get it > > all free? > > > > You asked "how much pain would we be introducing" ... all we can tell is > > how much pain you "could" or "might", not "would". The odds are in your > > favor - chances are very slim that there will be an issue in RHEL that > > affects U2, that it will get fixed by RH but not passed on in CentOS. > > There's just a time delay - you'd be paying RedHat to get changes to you > > faster, that's all, but you'll eventually get the same changes from > CentOS. > > > > HTH > > T > > > > _______________________________________________ > > U2-Users mailing list > > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _______________________________________________ > > U2-Users mailing list > > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > _______________________________________________ > > U2-Users mailing list > > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > > > > > > -- > Dawn M. Wolthuis > > Take and give some delight today > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > _______________________________________________ > U2-Users mailing list > U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org > http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users > -- Dawn M. Wolthuis Take and give some delight today _______________________________________________ U2-Users mailing list U2-Users@listserver.u2ug.org http://listserver.u2ug.org/mailman/listinfo/u2-users
