RE: [BLUG] Are source based distributions better for servers?

Joe Auty wrote:
> Which sort of distribution do you prefer for servers, and why?
> What are your general recommendations these days?

I run RHEL on just about everything, with a couple of exceptions:

- DB server: Gentoo (think optimized, stripped down install -- I want as
much performance as possible outta that box).
- Syslog server: Debian (stripped down install -- would've been Gentoo
but I wasn't messing w/ it at the time that box was set up).

That's assuming you're referring to production servers, of course.

--
Jeremy L. Gaddis
Network Administrator
Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana
812.330.6156 (w) 812.330.6212 (f)

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

[BLUG] Are source based distributions better for servers?

It would seem to me that the strengths of a package based distro like
Ubuntu or Red Hat is the speed and ease in which software can be
updated, machines can be rebuilt/deployed. However, if you need certain
non-default command line options enabled with your software, you are
left to hunting down a non-Red Hat RPM or building one on your own. This
I'm not such a big fan of, since I'm not sure which non-Red Hat RPMs can
be safely trusted, and plus it is a PITA. I'm assuming this same sort of
thing applies to Ubuntu Server, but I'm not all that familiar with
apt-get just yet...

The advantage of a source based distribution seems to be that custom
build options are easier, software might be a little more optimized for
your hardware once compiled on the host hardware, but building software
takes time, and if your production server has a high load, it's best not
to build on the server. Some source based distributions support
packages/binaries, but in my experience under FreeBSD they are often
missing.

Of the source distributions, I have to say that while I've given Gentoo
a lot of my time, I prefer FreeBSD. I have been debating the possibility
of migrating from FreeBSD to Linux on my server, but I really can't come
up with a good justification.

Which sort of distribution do you prefer for servers, and why? What are
your general recommendations these days?

--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] C/C++

On 15/09/2007, Michael Schultheiss <schultmc@cinlug.org> wrote:
> Michel Salim wrote:
> > I feel your pain. LILO! Not aware that any distribution still ships it
> > by default, on most platforms anyway (I believe it's still needed on
> > Itaniums).
>
> Itaniums use ELILO which is a different beast. They also use EFI
> instead of the PC type BIOS. I believe the new Macs also use EFI and
> may use ELILO for Linux asx well.

I don't think any distribution is currently using ELILO on Intel Macs,
AFAIK -- would be nice when they do, and use the GPT partition table
natively. I think Intel's Santa Rosa platform also comes with EFI
instead of BIOS (but with BIOS emulation turned on by default,
naturally), so hopefully there'll be a critical mass of machines soon
(that, or someone ships a souped-up version of OLPC, with the
even-nicer OpenFirmware + LinuxBIOS)

> > RPM has its quirks, though it does have some features DPKG does not
> > (dependencies on files, e.g. a package can say "I need
> > /usr/sbin/useradd").
>
> I absolutely hate that. I have to work with RPMs at work and I recently
> changed our dependencies to be totally package based. I can't say "I
> want version foo of /usr/sbin/useradd" but can say "I need shadow-utils
> >= XYZ"
Yeah, it's mostly useful for third-party upstream packagers, I guess.
If they want to release a single RPM that will install on multiple
RPM-based distros, and thus cannot rely on a particular package name
..

Fedora uses package- and virtual-package dependencies (almost?)
exclusively, as far as I know.

--
Michel
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] C/C++

Michel Salim wrote:
> On 15/09/2007, Simón Ruiz <simon.a.ruiz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But a lot of stuff that I don't yet know too much about also has high
>> weight in the test. I need to learn my way around RPMs, LILO, and all
>> the "GNU and Unix commands".
>
> Presumably you are using VMware or Xen to run one or two RPM-based
> distros? (or have multiple physical machines -- lucky you!)
>

VMware Player and a virtual Fedora 7 machine.

I do have multiple physical machines. They're just mostly collecting
dust in a closet. IBM PC, anyone? ;-)
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] C/C++

Michael Schultheiss wrote:
> Simón Ruiz wrote:
>> I also understand that it's been updated, at least since 1998.
>> "Configuring Communications Devices" has a weight of 1 while "Use
>> Debian Package Management" has a weight of 8 (out of 8).
>
> w00t
>
> One of my other FLOSS hats is Debian Developer :)

Sorry to say it, but "Use Red Hat Package Manager", also has a weight of
8/8, and nothing has a weight of 7/8. So I can tell that those two will
both be tested rigorously and above and beyond anything else.
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] C/C++

Michel Salim wrote:
> I feel your pain. LILO! Not aware that any distribution still ships it
> by default, on most platforms anyway (I believe it's still needed on
> Itaniums).

Itaniums use ELILO which is a different beast. They also use EFI
instead of the PC type BIOS. I believe the new Macs also use EFI and
may use ELILO for Linux asx well.

>
> RPM has its quirks, though it does have some features DPKG does not
> (dependencies on files, e.g. a package can say "I need
> /usr/sbin/useradd").

I absolutely hate that. I have to work with RPMs at work and I recently
changed our dependencies to be totally package based. I can't say "I
want version foo of /usr/sbin/useradd" but can say "I need shadow-utils
>= XYZ"
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] C/C++

Simón Ruiz wrote:
> I also understand that it's been updated, at least since 1998.
> "Configuring Communications Devices" has a weight of 1 while "Use
> Debian Package Management" has a weight of 8 (out of 8).

w00t

One of my other FLOSS hats is Debian Developer :)

--
----------------------------
Michael Schultheiss
E-mail: schultmc@debian.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug