What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
If its a serious server with REAL use, then not on your life :) see the thread RH exiting 1 more data center.. the only fedora box remaining is the irc server which i am personally changing away from fedora in the morning, oh its nice to have teh news server up for 2 days straight now since removing fedora and installing slackware lol
As others have said in bugzilla, the smp stuff from kernel org works fine, but who knows what the fedora ppl do with it coz its screwed on FC1, and every update they have to date.
I know of a hosting company that uses Fedora as their OS, and haven't heard any problems from them about it.
I run Fedora here as my server (file/DNS/Web), but it isn't anything intensive.
I myself prefer Red Hat 9 as a server, because it isn't so cutting-edge as Fedora, there is more of a focus around stability and the like.
Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
i run web- (apache), smtp- (postfix), imap- (cyrus), ftpserver (vsftpd), amavis and so on with fc1. runs stable and reliable. just can recommend it. Only the prelink-thing i had to disable because of my virus-scanner...
Roger
Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
So far I have found it to be great.. just migrated my web/email server and my MySQL server from two P2 servers one running RH7.2 and the other running RH9 to a single P4 server running web, mail and MySQL 4.. So far its been running about 3 weeks and has been rock solid..
Later..
----- Original Message ----- From: "WipeOut" wipe_out@users.sourceforge.net To: fedora-list@redhat.com Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2004 7:43 AM Subject: Re: FC1 as a server
Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
So far I have found it to be great.. just migrated my web/email server and my MySQL server from two P2 servers one running RH7.2 and the other running RH9 to a single P4 server running web, mail and MySQL 4.. So far its been running about 3 weeks and has been rock solid..
Later..
I also have a new xeon machine running FC1 with web / mail / ftp that runs great. Seems even better then my older RH9 install.
YMMV
Rob
I have it on 2 Web Servers, 2 Database Servers, 1 Firewall, 2 DNS Servers, zero problems.
Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:25, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
We actually use it in several dozen servers without incident. We maybe the exception though. We also run the SMP kernel without a problem. We have it running on dual AMD systems, Dual Intel, and Dual Intel Xeon boxes. We did have one boot problem on the dual xeon box, but we have it running on one of the mail gateways, and it handles everything nicely.
Hi, It's working but ... If it's a critical production environment, and if you plan to contract support whith HP, forget it ! I do have a problem with a G3 server which crash after 2 weeks in production mode. Since I have an other G3 as office server which run perfectly, I'm quite sure that it's a hardware problem, and I have standard 3 years garanty from HP. So I called them, and I have been told that they don't care about my problem because of FC1 !!!!!!!! They just told me to install RH8 which is the last "open" release supported, or to by RedHat ES3 !. Not really what I expected from such a company ! ( why do not install WFW3.11 ??? )
If somebody has an other feed back HP, please let me know ! Regards. Gaetan Yavorsky.
Michael Gargiullo a écrit :
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:25, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
We actually use it in several dozen servers without incident. We maybe the exception though. We also run the SMP kernel without a problem. We have it running on dual AMD systems, Dual Intel, and Dual Intel Xeon boxes. We did have one boot problem on the dual xeon box, but we have it running on one of the mail gateways, and it handles everything nicely.
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 09:45, yavorsky gaetan wrote:
Hi, It's working but ... If it's a critical production environment, and if you plan to contract support whith HP, forget it ! I do have a problem with a G3 server which crash after 2 weeks in production mode. Since I have an other G3 as office server which run perfectly, I'm quite sure that it's a hardware problem, and I have standard 3 years garanty from HP. So I called them, and I have been told that they don't care about my problem because of FC1 !!!!!!!! They just told me to install RH8 which is the last "open" release supported, or to by RedHat ES3 !. Not really what I expected from such a company ! ( why do not install WFW3.11 ??? )
If somebody has an other feed back HP, please let me know ! Regards. Gaetan Yavorsky.
You may wish to take a look at this:
This is an RHEL clone that will pretty much mirror Red Hat's development of their Enterprise Linux release. What it is missing is anything not OpenSource. Outside of this, it looks, and I would guess, operates just like RHEL.
While I wouldn't go on record as to ask you to lie to your HP support people, I suppose you wouldn't be too far off the truth to say that you are running RHEL....sort off...with WBEL. And WBEL, like its clone brother, will supposedly have a longer cycle life and be more stable than Fedora. My brief testing shows it that running X far faster than in RH 9, but slightly less snappier than Fedora. Not a bad trade off, and definitely an improvement for someone like me who wants to go beyond RH 9 on his server, but wants minimum hassles and support chores.
I've had no problems with Fedora Core 1 on my workstation, a meager little AMD 500 MHz with a mere 192 MB's of RAM. However, I am daunted by the need to consider such frequent updating as Fedora would suggest. It's fine for my workstation, but too much for my server. I don't work on PC's for a living, anymore, and the time isn't there to do so and still support the rest of my network. WBEL looks good to me. I tip my (red) hat off to Joe Klemmer for referring WhiteBox to me.
Maybe WBEL can help you achieve your goals and get along better with HP. If you have a spare box to test it with, I think it would be worth the time spent trying it out.
HTH,
Paul
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:45:43PM +0100, yavorsky gaetan wrote:
Hi, It's working but ... If it's a critical production environment, and if you plan to contract support whith HP, forget it ! I do have a problem with a G3 server which crash after 2 weeks in production mode. Since I have an other G3 as office server which run perfectly, I'm quite sure that it's a hardware problem, and I have standard 3 years garanty from HP. So I called them, and I have been told that they don't care about my problem because of FC1 !!!!!!!! They just told me to install RH8 which is the last "open" release supported, or to by RedHat ES3 !. Not really what I expected from such a company ! ( why do not install WFW3.11 ??? )
If somebody has an other feed back HP, please let me know ! Regards. Gaetan Yavorsky.
The machine should have come with a "smart start" CDRM. On my proliant (DL-320 G2) that CDis bootable, and it contains a full set of hardware diagnostics. I suggest you dig it out, boot it, and let the diagnostics run overnight or over a weekend.
Michael Gargiullo a écrit :
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:25, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
We actually use it in several dozen servers without incident. We maybe the exception though. We also run the SMP kernel without a problem. We have it running on dual AMD systems, Dual Intel, and Dual Intel Xeon boxes. We did have one boot problem on the dual xeon box, but we have it running on one of the mail gateways, and it handles everything nicely.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
fred smith a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:45:43PM +0100, yavorsky gaetan wrote:
Hi, It's working but ... If it's a critical production environment, and if you plan to contract support whith HP, forget it ! I do have a problem with a G3 server which crash after 2 weeks in production mode. Since I have an other G3 as office server which run perfectly, I'm quite sure that it's a hardware problem, and I have standard 3 years garanty from HP. So I called them, and I have been told that they don't care about my problem because of FC1 !!!!!!!! They just told me to install RH8 which is the last "open" release supported, or to by RedHat ES3 !. Not really what I expected from such a company ! ( why do not install WFW3.11 ??? )
If somebody has an other feed back HP, please let me know ! Regards. Gaetan Yavorsky.
The machine should have come with a "smart start" CDRM. On my proliant (DL-320 G2) that CDis bootable, and it contains a full set of hardware diagnostics. I suggest you dig it out, boot it, and let the diagnostics run overnight or over a weekend
I did it and it didn't report anything :-\ Anyway, It's a ML350-G3, 1,5 Go ECCC, Smart Array with 2x36 Go Raid 1 which acts as a firewall ( Iptables & webmin module ) The only diff with my office server, is that this system has 2 x 32 bits PCI 10/100 Eth card from CNET ( RealTek 81399too ), One is on the 32 bit pci bus and the other one is on the 64 bit pci bus ( thince I just have one pci 32 available on this machine ) I don't know if it is important ... Gaetan Yavorsky
Michael Gargiullo a écrit :
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:25, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
We actually use it in several dozen servers without incident. We maybe the exception though. We also run the SMP kernel without a problem. We have it running on dual AMD systems, Dual Intel, and Dual Intel Xeon boxes. We did have one boot problem on the dual xeon box, but we have it running on one of the mail gateways, and it handles everything nicely.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
yavorsky gaetan wrote:
fred smith a écrit :
On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 03:45:43PM +0100, yavorsky gaetan wrote:
Hi, It's working but ... If it's a critical production environment, and if you plan to contract support whith HP, forget it ! I do have a problem with a G3 server which crash after 2 weeks in production mode. Since I have an other G3 as office server which run perfectly, I'm quite sure that it's a hardware problem, and I have standard 3 years garanty from HP. So I called them, and I have been told that they don't care about my problem because of FC1 !!!!!!!! They just told me to install RH8 which is the last "open" release supported, or to by RedHat ES3 !. Not really what I expected from such a company ! ( why do not install WFW3.11 ??? )
If somebody has an other feed back HP, please let me know ! Regards. Gaetan Yavorsky.
The machine should have come with a "smart start" CDRM. On my proliant (DL-320 G2) that CDis bootable, and it contains a full set of hardware diagnostics. I suggest you dig it out, boot it, and let the diagnostics run overnight or over a weekend
I did it and it didn't report anything :-\ Anyway, It's a ML350-G3, 1,5 Go ECCC, Smart Array with 2x36 Go Raid 1 which acts as a firewall ( Iptables & webmin module ) The only diff with my office server, is that this system has 2 x 32 bits PCI 10/100 Eth card from CNET ( RealTek 81399too ), One is on the 32 bit pci bus and the other one is on the 64 bit pci bus ( thince I just have one pci 32 available on this machine ) I don't know if it is important ... Gaetan Yavorsky
I would think that two similar cards would conflict with each other for the same IRQ. Maybe installing two unsimilar cards that use different IRQs would not cause any conflicts.
Just a guess,
Jim
Michael Gargiullo wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:25, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
We actually use it in several dozen servers without incident. We maybe the exception though. We also run the SMP kernel without a problem. We have it running on dual AMD systems, Dual Intel, and Dual Intel Xeon boxes. We did have one boot problem on the dual xeon box, but we have it running on one of the mail gateways, and it handles everything nicely.
Have you done either a minimum install or a full install??
My minimum install is stable with SMP but my workstation install is not..
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 10:14, WipeOut wrote:
Michael Gargiullo wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:25, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
We actually use it in several dozen servers without incident. We maybe the exception though. We also run the SMP kernel without a problem. We have it running on dual AMD systems, Dual Intel, and Dual Intel Xeon boxes. We did have one boot problem on the dual xeon box, but we have it running on one of the mail gateways, and it handles everything nicely.
Have you done either a minimum install or a full install??
My minimum install is stable with SMP but my workstation install is not..
Interesting, I've got 12 machine across the country running with a minimal installation (They run dhcpd, ntp, tftp, and perl scripts in cron)
I have a mail server that started with a minimal install, but exim was added, as was spamassassin, and clamscan.
I guess I always start with minimal installation, and only add the functions I need the box to run.
Michael Gargiullo wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 10:14, WipeOut wrote:
Michael Gargiullo wrote:
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:25, Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
-- Regards, Fredrik Holmberg
We actually use it in several dozen servers without incident. We maybe the exception though. We also run the SMP kernel without a problem. We have it running on dual AMD systems, Dual Intel, and Dual Intel Xeon boxes. We did have one boot problem on the dual xeon box, but we have it running on one of the mail gateways, and it handles everything nicely.
Have you done either a minimum install or a full install??
My minimum install is stable with SMP but my workstation install is not..
Interesting, I've got 12 machine across the country running with a minimal installation (They run dhcpd, ntp, tftp, and perl scripts in cron)
I have a mail server that started with a minimal install, but exim was added, as was spamassassin, and clamscan.
I guess I always start with minimal installation, and only add the functions I need the box to run.
Yea, thats how I would think servers should be, start with minimum install and then add only whats needed.. It is still strange that SMP appears to be stable on minimally installed systems while workstations and desktops seem to hang..
Then there are people who have installed "everything" who say their systems are stable.. its definately weird..
Fredrik Holmberg wrote:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
I never installed a RH9 server. My desktop experiences with FC1 have been much much better than with RH9, however. Many more things 'just work' like they are supposed to.
As far as FC1 servers go... 3 LDAP/SMB/DNS/DHCP servers: up 45 days with no unscheduled reboots 1 postfix/spamd/cyrus IMAP server: up 45 days with no unscheduled reboots (need to add clamav) 8 SMP compute servers: 7 up 30 days, 2 hung by application 4 days ago
Em Qui, 2004-02-26 às 10:25, Fredrik Holmberg escreveu:
What are your experiences on running Fedora (Core 1) as a server, in comparison to the former Red Hat 9 (Shrike)?
45 days uptime, using fedora 1 and kernel 2.6, to a light-load for http and email, and medium/heavy load for SMB shares (25 windows computers, using insurance programs) . As the machine is primarly I/O bounded, the seti@home process runs full-time, so the processor is always nearby 100% use.
Is this stable or what?
Oh yeah, is an athlon 950mhz, 512mb ram, ide hd, voodoo video card. Nothing too fancy.
-
Adam Voigt -
Alexandre Strube -
Bevan C. Bennett -
Fred Smith -
Fredrik Holmberg -
gaetan yavorsky -
Jim Cornette -
Michael Gargiullo -
Paul M. Bucalo -
Res -
Rob Freeman -
Robert Vangel -
Roger Grosswiler -
WipeOut