[olug] Installing multiple linux distros...

[T. J. Brumfield]

Service downtime is an issue with any service, be it Windows or Linux.

My point is that it is a given that we have to schedule downtime for
another, but we don't have that mentality in the *nix world.

Let's say I needed to patch some Windows boxes, but it needs to be up
24/7. Either I fail over to a redundant box, which has minimal
downtime, but downtime none the less, or I utilize clustering. With
clustering obviously I can migrate everything to one portion of the
cluster, then patch and reboot another portion of the cluster. Or I
just tell people to expect 1 hour of downtime a month and make them
live with it. Yet since the standard practice is with *nix systems not
to really patch, users are accustomed to not expect downtime at all.
And when you ask for an hour, they act like it is pulling out teeth,
even though they are used to the downtime for their Windows systems.

That being said, I think we're digressing here. I was just trying to
express that installing something that is already old the day you
install it doesn't make your system more stable. I don't understand
the mentality that old equates to stable, since it likely has bugs
that the new version fixes. But again, to each their own.

-- T. J. Brumfield

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Jay Swackhamer<Jay at reboottheuser.com> wrote:
> It is a major hassle, when the applications/databases are supposed to
> be up 24/7/365 and coordinating several projects to agree to the same
> downtime is sometimes not possible.
>
> Oracle cluster,
> # uptime
>  15:01:35 up 388 days, 11:05,  3 users,  load average: 2.43, 2.08, 1.70
>
> --
> Jay Swackhamer
> Reboot The User
> 402-933-6449
> http://www.reboottheuser.com
> http://www.cafepress.com/rtu
> http://stores.ebay.com/RebootTheUser
> http://www.hotr.com
>
>
> Quoting "T. J. Brumfield" <enderandrew at gmail.com>:
>
>> Yes, but they only patch what they see as security issues as opposed
>> to all bugs.
>>
>> As far as migration goes, we're talking minor updates to packages. The
>> nice thing about Linux is that you can patch without a full reboot.
>> Most shops automatically account for patching all Windows boxes are
>> rebooting them once a month. Yet the idea of trying to update a Linux
>> box once every six months is considered a major hassle.
>>
>> -- T. J. Brumfield
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 2:41 PM, adunlop<techworld.mail at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> RHEL patches security issues rather quickly.  CentOS does as well from
>>> what I've seen.  The advantage to having older software is that you
>>> have to update less often.  Fedora may have a 12 month lifespan, but
>>> with RHEL you have 7 years.  Migrating production servers is a task
>>> best done at a more leisurely pace than annually :)
>>>
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 2:14 PM, T. J. Brumfield wrote:
>>>
>>>>> CentOS is the primary distro I use.  Aside from a glitchy network
>>>>> driver for the Realtek 8138/8139 integrated NIC on the AMD SB700/770
>>>>> chipsets I've not had to mess with drivers at all.  That driver
>>>>> really
>>>>> isn't CentOS's fault either.  It does run behind on kernel versions
>>>>> but hey, it's a server distro, stability and long-life wins.  You're
>>>>> always free to roll your own :)
>>>>>
>>>>> Aaron
>>>>
>>>> There are those that prefer old versions because they feel old
>>>> versions are inherently more stable. Others prefer bleeding edge
>>>> because they feel that they will have the most features, and the
>>>> latest fixes. Honestly, I'm not sure there is a huge difference in
>>>> stability between the two unless package maintainers make the effort
>>>> to backport fixes without backporting new features. There are people
>>>> who maintain older kernel lines for exactly that reason, but overall
>>>> even new kernel releases are pretty stable.
>>>>
>>>> Most major distros and projects within the Linux-verse implement a
>>>> feature-freeze before releasing to focus on fixing bugs without adding
>>>> any features. I'm not sure that intentionally running old versions
>>>> gives you any benefits.
>>>>
>>>> But to each their own. The beauty of Linux is that you're afforded
>>>> that choice to do as you please.
>>>>
>>>> -- T. J. Brumfield