View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
TheCoop Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2002 Posts: 1814 Location: Where you least expect it
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2003 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
most of those comments above can be addressed by this:
Gentoo is, by its very nature, an 'unstable' distribution. It isn't meant to be debian stable, it is meant to be on the cutting edge and if being on the cutting edge means letting a few things (eg documentation) lag behind, then so be it. These forums more than make up for any documentation available
However, it is easy to use gentoo for production servers. Just dont set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS and look carefully at what the ebuilds do. If you are a proper sysadmin you will do that for any linux distribution, not just gentoo.
And about the etc-update. It does that so your edited config files dont get nuked, you can choose what you want to merge and what you want to delete in the new /etc files an ebuild puts in. What;s the problem with that? _________________ 95% of all computer errors occur between chair and keyboard (TM)
"One World, One web, One program" - Microsoft Promo ad.
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer" - Adolf Hitler
Change the world - move a rock |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Matje l33t
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Posts: 619 Location: Hasselt, Belgium
|
Posted: Thu May 29, 2003 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mezz:
* All your "problems" with portage touching files in /etc ... It doesn't, it puts the new files there and you can use etc-update to update your current files. It NEVER touches any of your current configfiles, unless you tell it to by unexporting the CONFIG_PROTECT variable. Also, etc-update nowadays has an "interactive" option. You first upgrade the files you know you changed yourself. Then you let the rest of the files be overwritten by the updates automatically. It beats having no update examples and maybe leaving out important, new functions in packages.
* The 'lack' of installer gives you more power, since you control almost every step of your install (except the bootstrap process)
* If you install on fifty boxes, there are likely to be a lot of them (if not all) which are alike, take a disk image and copy it to the other boxes. I myself would rather install fifty boxes with gentoo manually as with Red Hat or Suse. Won't say Debian or FreeBSD because I haven't tried that yet.
* Agree with you on the prefix part, you should be able to choose what you want. Post a request on bugs.gentoo.org. I also disagree, it works for me, there's no need to change it for me.
* Those patches mostly are security fixes and stuff which won't harm you. The actual influence on package builds is done by USE parameters. Don't you think that those binary packages of debian or freebsd have patches applied? Again, the idea of an emerge option to disable patches is good: bugs.gentoo.org
* The documentation of Gentoo is by far the best I've seen in the linux world
* Changelogs should be updated more reguraly, I agree
* There should also be a printable version of the documentation, although I've noticed the latest version produces much better results. Please note that results also vary based on which browser you use...
* As far as I know, after you've bootstrapped, you have a "bare-bone-system" on which you can start to go into any direction you want. You want an apache box? emerge apache. You want a desktop machine? emerge xfree... I don't really see your point here. As long as you stay out of the masked packages, you will be running a very stable gentoo box. And gentoo allready has a -stable branch. It's: don't use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS='~x86'
* As far as I'm concerned, KDE isn't exactly a thing you run on a "mission critical server" Things will break, yes, that's linux, it breaks, you try to fix it. And users don't have to just sit and wait, they can take an active role in the development, they can search for solutions and post them to bugs.gentoo.org. Besides, waiting before a package gets into portage takes a lot less time then it takes to get into debian-stable (or so I've heard ) _________________ Life is like a box of chocolates... Before you know it, it's empty... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
darkcoder Apprentice
Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 253 Location: Lynchburg, VA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In terms of installation and bring a server up and running in no time definitelly a binary based distro (RPM, deb, whatever) is the best choice. But people that got a look to RedHat official books, probably read that the authors recommend to download the latest versions of the services' sources you'll need and compile them manually, which in fact break RHN, and put you in some way in the same position as Gentoo.
But for maintenance I found gentoo a lot better. Got less problems with outside sources, don't break as many rules as RH or MDK.
Anyway if servers have similar hardware, you can compile only once, compress the OS as a file and extract it on the other server. And that's easier than running an installer again.
Mario |
|
Back to top |
|
|
darkcoder Apprentice
Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 253 Location: Lynchburg, VA
|
Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2003 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And BTW, when I said in same position means compiling sources manually. RH cannot compare with Gentoo in terms of maintenance. _________________ Not bleeding edge.... No pain no game |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Evangelion Veteran
Joined: 31 May 2002 Posts: 1087 Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Matje wrote: |
* The documentation of Gentoo is by far the best I've seen in the linux world |
I love Gentoo and I find it's documentation to be great, but I have to put SuSE's documentation ahead of Gentoos (or anyone elses for that matter). _________________ My tech-blog | My other blog |
|
Back to top |
|
|
samokk Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 13 Jun 2003 Posts: 116 Location: Paris, France
|
Posted: Fri Jun 13, 2003 1:14 pm Post subject: Re: "Gentoo unsuitable for mission critical servers&quo |
|
|
roderickvd wrote: | http://www.distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=major
Quote: | Cons: [...] unsuitable for mission critical servers. |
I don't want to start an OS or Linux distro war here, so please let's stick to just Gentoo. And I'm wondering: does anyone agree on this topic? Granted, Gentoo 1.1a had its fair share of child diseases so to speak, but all of Gentoo's core components have matured and are, in my opinion, highly stable.
Not only does Gentoo itself seem to be stable to me, so do all of the subcomponents when you're running stable (i.e. not ~arch). I am running Gentoo on a couple of mission critical servers and am delighted to do so.
Does anyone agree with the above statement and if so, why? |
I partly agree because of the depends problems gentoo has..
when unmerging, you can't know what's going to screw up .. this is pretty disapointing, and even more if your computer is a mission critical server..
sam |
|
Back to top |
|
|
laika n00b
Joined: 25 Jul 2002 Posts: 30 Location: Plano, TX
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 8:47 pm Post subject: Version Control? |
|
|
The simple answer to most everyone's complaints here is simple: Maintain your own portage tree. It's quite simple and allows you maintain exact control over your servers. You can place ports/slots in an unstable branch and test these at your leisure, while maintaining what you deem stable for the rest of the network. Yes, version control is the real advantage of Gentoo, even above local compilation. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Black Apprentice
Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 158 Location: Québec, Canada
|
Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:35 pm Post subject: Re: Version Control? |
|
|
laika wrote: | The simple answer to most everyone's complaints here is simple: Maintain your own portage tree. |
Anyone wants to write a How-To for that? Please? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gabe n00b
Joined: 10 Sep 2003 Posts: 27 Location: 42° 53' N 85° 31' W
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
That list basically just sums up the generic stereotypes of every major Linux distribution that are floating around every online Linux community.
I have found Gentoo to be quite stable. However, it is not "tried and true." No one has been running Gentoo with an uptime of 3 and a half years on their mission critical server, as I am sure some folks have with Debian stable, RH, and Slack. Until Gentoo gets old enough for this to happen, there will be naysayers. _________________ -Gabe
----------
gabe.ef-honda.com |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Crg Guru
Joined: 29 May 2002 Posts: 345 Location: London
|
Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:34 am Post subject: Re: "Gentoo unsuitable for mission critical servers& |
|
|
bsolar wrote: | Quote: | Cons: [...] unsuitable for mission critical servers. |
IMHO it reads: "Not everybody is able to set-up Gentoo to be suitable for mission critical servers." |
That's very accurate
Reading some of the posts on this forum it's obvious some people have never had to deal with servers that if something goes wrong can cost the company (ie in some jobs I've had, in the tens/hundreds of thousands of pounds), they haven't grasped the idea of dedicated servers, processes such as "change control", and seem to think they are elite admins because they look after some little server built on spare parts somewhere in the garage and it stays up for a hundred days or so. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sschlueter Guru
Joined: 26 Jul 2002 Posts: 578 Location: Dortmund, Germany
|
Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mezz wrote: |
-Take the look at net-mail/qmail, there have many patches by default. I
don't want those patch, am I supposed to edit the ebuilds at the each
time when I update them?
|
You can simply put your modified ebuild into the PORTDIR_OVERLAY directory. emerge sync won't touch it and it has priority over the original ebuild. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gilesjuk Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2003 Posts: 412 Location: Staffordshire, UK
|
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Main problem many distros have is they use very recent versions of GCC. For mission critical work I would not use anything so recent, compiler bugs do happen.
Also a binary distro is easier and faster to update, if you have to update many servers then you don't want them out of action for long. _________________ ^<^>^<^>^
G. Jones
-=-=-=-=-=- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zeitgeist Apprentice
Joined: 13 Mar 2003 Posts: 165 Location: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
|
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Linux itself isn't ment for mission critical work. I think that term is overused because everyone has different levels of what it means.
Solaris, HP-UX, AIX etc is for mission critical work, Linux is not ready and will not be for some time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
avenj Retired Dev
Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Posts: 495 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 11:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zeitgeist wrote: | Linux itself isn't ment for mission critical work. I think that term is overused because everyone has different levels of what it means.
Solaris, HP-UX, AIX etc is for mission critical work, Linux is not ready and will not be for some time. |
Somebody better inform HP, IBM, and all the other companies pushing Linux for mission critical work! They're wrong - Zeitgeist said so!
On a more serious note, can you elaborate? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JHuber n00b
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 33
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have been using linux for ooo aroung 6 years now. i recently moved to gentoo just to try it. also i wanted a distro that was fast, easy to maintain, and as stable as say winxp (which on my windows box is very stable). so far gentoo has fit those requirements. i didnt want an overbloated binary distro for my main system. in short the server in my house runs redhat and my machine runs gentoo. gentoo was not advertised as being the answer to your file, print and application server needs, its a distro for people that want a fast stable gaming machine. at least thats what i see _________________ I always thought signatures were silly. Of course I am silly too....... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mmealman Guru
Joined: 02 Nov 2002 Posts: 348 Location: Florida
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
If I want a Linux server setup that a monkey could keep going, I'll use Debian stable with apt pointed to security updates.
That said, our servers at work are migrating to Gentoo.
The compile times are easily gotten around via distcc and frankly in another 3 years when everyone is using 10Ghz machines it'll be a complete non-issue. I personally like to have a lot of control over the software on my servers and Gentoo gives me that control.
But I think the future of Gentoo on the server becoming more mainstream will probably depend on Gentoo projects like Hardened Linux. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JHuber n00b
Joined: 24 Jun 2003 Posts: 33
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 11:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
sorry for the reposts. button didnt seem to be working but apparently it was. _________________ I always thought signatures were silly. Of course I am silly too....... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zenlunatic Guru
Joined: 09 Apr 2003 Posts: 312
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I encourage everyone to visit the arstechnica.com open forums and read the battles section. Out of all the places that I have searched on the web, I find that one has a very diverse audience of "newbies" "elite dudes" and all types of zealots and techno enthusiasts. I think they have some good threads in the battle section about running servers, render farms, and all types of missions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Koon Retired Dev
Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 518
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Zeitgeist wrote: | Linux itself isn't ment for mission critical work. I think that term is overused because everyone has different levels of what it means. |
It's quite normal that people have different perceptions of what mission-critical means. A Mission-critical system, is.. well.. a system which is critical to its mission. Its mission can be air-traffic control or a payment database for a small E-commerce firm. Gentoo, or more generally Linux, *can* be suitable for mission-critical systems, it all depends which.
Zeitgeist wrote: | Solaris, HP-UX, AIX etc is for mission critical work, Linux is not ready and will not be for some time. |
I must admit I don't see in which mission-critical applications can these Unices be more appropriate than Gentoo Linux. Having used Solaris for a long time, I don't see where it's so damn superior. Please elaborate...
-K |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Zeitgeist Apprentice
Joined: 13 Mar 2003 Posts: 165 Location: Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | Having used Solaris for a long time, I don't see where it's so damn superior. Please elaborate... |
Solaris, as a server, is a lot more mature and advanced. I'm not expert but I haven't seen any linux machine reach the level of reliability i've seen with Solaris. Of course, it may be a mixed of tightly knit hardware Sun sells with it, but I've seen Solaris machines running with very high loads for years at a time. Ive yet to see Linux reach this level of reliability. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gilesjuk Guru
Joined: 11 Feb 2003 Posts: 412 Location: Staffordshire, UK
|
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2003 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Koon wrote: | It's quite normal that people have different perceptions of what mission-critical means. A Mission-critical system, is.. well.. a system which is critical to its mission. Its mission can be air-traffic control or a payment database for a small E-commerce firm. Gentoo, or more generally Linux, *can* be suitable for mission-critical systems, it all depends which.
|
A Linux server can stay up for quite a long time as long as it's not exposed to the net. This is when hack attempts and patching become a problem. _________________ ^<^>^<^>^
G. Jones
-=-=-=-=-=- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
avenj Retired Dev
Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Posts: 495 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Zeitgeist wrote: | Quote: | Having used Solaris for a long time, I don't see where it's so damn superior. Please elaborate... |
Solaris, as a server, is a lot more mature and advanced. I'm not expert but I haven't seen any linux machine reach the level of reliability i've seen with Solaris. Of course, it may be a mixed of tightly knit hardware Sun sells with it, but I've seen Solaris machines running with very high loads for years at a time. Ive yet to see Linux reach this level of reliability. |
I've seen lots of Linux systems running for very high loads for years at a time.
Can you please give us a specific technical explanation for why Linux wouldn't stay up for years at a time in high-load, mission-critical situations? If it crashes at any point, there's a serious bug that's probably already fixed. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
avenj Retired Dev
Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Posts: 495 Location: New Hampshire
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
gilesjuk wrote: | Koon wrote: | It's quite normal that people have different perceptions of what mission-critical means. A Mission-critical system, is.. well.. a system which is critical to its mission. Its mission can be air-traffic control or a payment database for a small E-commerce firm. Gentoo, or more generally Linux, *can* be suitable for mission-critical systems, it all depends which.
|
A Linux server can stay up for quite a long time as long as it's not exposed to the net. This is when hack attempts and patching become a problem. |
Indeed, though that holds true for any monolithic system. That's one of the things I, personally, like about microkernels: Part of the kernel exploitable? Upgrade and replace it without a reboot. Filesystem drivers and network drivers are still a problem (and the underlying microkernel beneath the servers/translators), but it's a step forward. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Koon Retired Dev
Joined: 10 Dec 2002 Posts: 518
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30, 2003 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On patches and Solaris legendary reliability and uptime :
In both cases a properly-configured machine will last forever. You will have to stop the service to upgrade software and reboot the machine to upgrade kernel, in both cases. Don't believe that Solaris has less patches than any Linux distribution, that's a common misconception. And I've found the upgrade path from version to version to be easier with Gentoo Linux than with ANY other OS. Upgrade to Solaris N from N-1 will bring you a lot of downtime. Keeping Gentoo Linux current will bring you ~0 downtime.
-K |
|
Back to top |
|
|
labrador Guru
Joined: 04 Oct 2003 Posts: 316
|
Posted: Sat Oct 18, 2003 1:24 am Post subject: Compiling could be an issue |
|
|
In many server rooms there are a variety of boxes and platforms. And many of them need their CPU cycles for doing their main task. I once developed an email quota checking script in perl that took 1.5 seconds to run on my Sun Ultra 1. Against the same data, this script took 5 minutes to run on a faster mail server machine. The reason why? It was handling over 60,000 spam emails per hour. You can bet that any compiling, or even switching off the service for a few minutes, would cause the upstream data to pile up and mail to be possibly lost.
I understand there is supposed to be a way to compile on machine A for machine B, but if you take into consideration the server room is running many platforms that can't help (Novell, Windows 2000, Solaris, BSD), then you are looking at the picture of having another machine with gentoo just for compiling duties.
Another issue that I think needs consideration is that Gentoo has not been around long enough for ground shifting changes to have occured. All operating systems have points where they cross the line and you need to reinstall almost everything to make it compatible with glibc dependancies, xfree dependancies, etc. When these happen, then we will be in a position to judge how smooth Gentoo's maintenance system really is. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|