9:18 p.m.
I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
sean
11:24 p.m.
sean wrote:
I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
step-by-step,
fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
I have some things which aren't working after an FC3 to FC4 upgrade
(Gnome always complains about missing volume control elements for one
thing and won't put the volume control tool on my toolbar). So I'd
recommend a straight install of fc4 over the top of fc1. I did that
with a couple of servers and it went mostly fine though I should type up
the notes I have of pitfalls and post them somewhere.
12:58 a.m.
How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.x kernel.
On 9/12/05, sean <seandarcy2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
sean
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
--
As a boy I jumped through Windows, as a man I play with Penguins.
1:53 a.m.
On 9/13/05, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.xkernel.
You certainly don't want to stay with FC1 though... unless you want to run
an insecure server (or it's on a closed network) or you want to patch all
security updates manually.
The difference in system "load" between 2.4 and 2.6 is not that big too;
often, 2.6 even outperforms 2.4.
Klaasjan
7:51 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 08:53 +0200, Klaasjan Brand wrote:
On 9/13/05, Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com> wrote:
How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a
2.4.x kernel.
You certainly don't want to stay with FC1 though... unless you want to
run an insecure server (or it's on a closed network) or you want to
patch all security updates manually.
If you go this route, I'd check out http://www.fedoralegacy.com
--
prothonotar at tarnation dot dyndns dot org
10:07 a.m.
A. G. wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 08:53 +0200, Klaasjan Brand wrote:
............
If you go this route, I'd check out http://www.fedoralegacy.com
This is spam redirect. the correct url is www.fedoralegacy.org.
sean
6:01 a.m.
Quoting Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com>:
How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.x
kernel.
About the only time you should stay with a 2.4.x kernel is when you have
orphaned hardware that isn't supported in 2.6. Most older generic hardware is
supported, but some custom hardware interfaces or older RAID cards may use
drivers that haven't been ported to 2.6.x.
On 9/12/05, sean <seandarcy2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
> step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
You can't get meaningful advice if you don't give any details about your
requirements.
What are you looking for? Security updates? Specific applications?
For a stable server, CentOS might be a better choice.
--
George N. White III
Head of St. Margarets Bay, Nova Scotia
10:10 a.m.
George White wrote:
Quoting Arthur Pemberton <pemboa(a)gmail.com>:
>How old is this server? (specs) you might want to stay with a 2.4.x kernel.
About the only time you should stay with a 2.4.x kernel is when you have
orphaned hardware that isn't supported in 2.6. Most older generic hardware is
supported, but some custom hardware interfaces or older RAID cards may use
drivers that haven't been ported to 2.6.x.
>On 9/12/05, sean <seandarcy2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
>>step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
You can't get meaningful advice if you don't give any details about your
requirements.
What are you looking for? Security updates? Specific applications?
For a stable server, CentOS might be a better choice.
Fair enough. This is a 6 year old winchip box that serves as
a gateway , dchp server and limited file serving.
I'm looking to upgrade for security.
sean
10:28 a.m.
Hi
Fair enough. This is a 6 year old winchip box that serves as a gateway
, dchp server and limited file serving.
I'm looking to upgrade for security.
Fedora Legacy would provide security updates for sometime but several
important security enhancements including SELinux has been made over the
recent releases of FC. A general procedure for upgrades is available
from
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ#head-258e4efff9879474c4725667cc557e8a0e...
regards
Rahul
7:46 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Does
anybody know why is there such a link ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (after
(#)-sign)? I do program for web and it's interesting to me, How do they
do such links. :)
--
Best regards,
Strong.
12:10 p.m.
New subject: OT - Re: should I upgrade fc1 -> fc4?
Strong wrote:
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ#head-258e4efff9879474c4725667cc557e8a0ea3fd98
Does anybody know why is there such a link ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (after
(#)-sign)? I do program for web and it's interesting to me, How do they
do such links. :)
Basic HTML coding.
It is a href to a link in the page. Look at the source for the page.
The link
<a href="#head-279a5d35446924401d0b32930f4e99038dbc8e79">What software
can I use to set up my wireless network access?</a>
Points to
<h4 id="head-279a5d35446924401d0b32930f4e99038dbc8e79">What software
can I use to set up my wireless network access?</h4>
which is further down in the page.
--
Robin Laing
10:32 a.m.
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 10:10, sean wrote:
> What are you looking for? Security updates? Specific
applications?
> For a stable server, CentOS might be a better choice.
>
Fair enough. This is a 6 year old winchip box that serves as
a gateway , dchp server and limited file serving.
I'm looking to upgrade for security.
For the choice between fedora and centos, you should think about
how long you want to wait before doing the _next_ upgrade. If
you think you'll want the new features of a new fedora version
soon, that's the best choice. If you don't expect to need new
features and don't want to be bothered with frequent re-installs
or not-supported version level upgrades, go with Centos4 which
feature-wise is at about the same level as FC3 would be but which
will get security and bugfix updates much longer.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com
1:53 p.m.
Le lundi 12 septembre 2005 à 22:18 -0400, sean a écrit :
I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
sean
Don't try an upgrade. Save all your valuable files on a separate folder
that you will not format during the install process and go for a new
install.
I tried upgrading fc3 to fc4 and I got a lot of mess.
Be sure to re-use the same partition scheme and good luck.
JdK
11:52 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-09-13 at 20:53 +0200, Jdek wrote:
--
Best regards
Joachim Backes <backes(a)rhrk.uni-kl.de>
University of Kaiserslautern,Computer Center [RHRK],
Systems and Operations, High Performance Computing,
D-67653 Kaiserslautern, PO Box 3049, Germany
--------------------------------------------------
Phone: +49-631-205-2438, FAX: +49-631-205-3056
http://hlrwm.rhrk.uni-kl.de/home/staff/backes.html
Le lundi 12 septembre 2005 à 22:18 -0400, sean a écrit :
> I've got an old server running fc1. Should I upgrade it
> step-by-step, fc1-fc2-fc3, or just go directly to fc4?
>
> sean
>
Don't try an upgrade. Save all your valuable files on a separate folder
that you will not format during the install process and go for a new
install.
I tried upgrading fc3 to fc4 and I got a lot of mess.
Be sure to re-use the same partition scheme and good luck.
JdK
Hi,
got troubles when upgrading from F3 to FC4, but an upgrade FC3->FC4 was
fine on all my machines.
6766
days inactive
6808
days old
13 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Aaron Gaudio -
Arthur Pemberton -
George N. White III -
Jdek -
Joachim Backes -
Klaasjan Brand -
Les Mikesell -
Rahul Sundaram -
Robin Laing -
sean darcy -
Stephen Walton -
Strong