In fact, background for my post is very trivial: glusterfs is really in development stage. So there is a real difference in using 2.0.9, 3.0.2 or 3.0.3. In fact it might be a difference of go vs no-go in your very special setup. That's why I judge the comparison to other rpm questions as not valid. This is not fetchmail where you can use almost any rpm flying around. And I did not tell to compile your whole setup by hand. I am talking about glusterfs and using its latest version in favor of using some available rpm not containing the latest version. -- Regards, Stephan
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:19:30 +0100 "Steve" <steeeeev...@gmx.net> wrote: > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > > Datum: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 23:01:55 +0100 > > Von: Oliver Hoffmann <o...@dom.de> > > An: gluster-users@gluster.org > > Betreff: Re: [Gluster-users] Setup for production - which one would you > > choose? > > > Yep, thanx. > > > > @Stephan: It is not a matter of knowing how use tar and make, but if you > > have a bunch of servers than you want to do an apt-get update/upgrade > > once in a while without compiling this piece of software on that server > > and another one on another server, etc. > > > Not only that. On a RPM system (aka Red Hat, SuSE, Mandriva, etc) where you > have a support contract, installing packages that are not made by the vendor > does void support. So there is a good reason to use by vendor pre-build RPMs. > > A bunch of years ago I have helped a big vendor to virtualize the biggest > Linux installation in northern Europe for one of their customers. There where > over thousand Red Hat Enterprise Server installed in total. The customer > followed ITIL Release To Production. No you could jump up and down about a > new release of application XYZ and that you could install it form a self made > RPM. The customer does not care. Installing own made RPMS = no support from > Red Hat. Now if your business is depended on running systems and ever second > downtime can cost you hundreds of € then you don't think twice about > installing from source. You just don't do it. It's that easy. Just compare > the potential problem (aka: downtime, loss of money, loss of trust from > customers, etc) to the potential benefit of a own made RPM then you will > quickly realize that it is a "no go". > > Stephan is probably a small shop doing all his stuff by hand. But there are > situations where this handicraft stuff is just not the way to go. > > > > > It is hard to fully understand what you just wrote. If you are > > > suggesting that someone else's personal preferences (or company > > > objectives) are incorrect or misguided simply because they don't match > > > your own I'm trying to understand how your last post pertains to the > > > user forum for Gluster? There are plenty of reasons to prefer packages > > > over source installations but that academic conversation is also not > > > appropriate for this list. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Benjamin > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org > > > [mailto:gluster-users-boun...@gluster.org] On Behalf Of Stephan von > > > Krawczynski > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 4:37 PM > > > To: Ian Rogers > > > Cc: gluster-users@gluster.org > > > Subject: Re: [Gluster-users] Setup for production - which one would you > > > choose? > > > > > > Ok, guys, honestly: it is allowed to learn (RMS fought for your right to > > > do so) > > > :-) > > > Really rarely in the open source universe you will find a piece of > > > software > > > that is as easy to compile and run as glusterfs. All you have to know > > > yourself > > > is how to use tar. Then enter the source directory and do "./configure ; > > > make ; > > > make install" What exactly is difficult to do? Why would you install > > > _some_ > > > rpm that is outdated anyways (be it 2.0.9 or 3.0.2)? > > > Please don't tell you configure and drive LAMP but can't build > > > glusterfs. > > > The docs for 5 apache config options are longer than the whole > > > glusterfs-source... > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Stephan > > > > > > PS: yes, I know it's the user-list. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 17:14:32 +0000 > > > Ian Rogers <ian.rog...@contactclean.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> I've just done part one of a writeup of my EC2 gluster LAMP > > >> > > > installation > > > > > >> at > > >> > > >> > > > http://www.sirgroane.net/2010/03/distributed-file-system-on-amazon-ec2/ > > > > > >> - may or may not be useful to you :-) > > >> > > >> Ian > > >> > > >> On 24/03/2010 17:09, Oliver Hoffmann wrote: > > >> > > >>> Yes, that's an idea. Thanx. That will be important for all the > > >>> > > > debian > > > > > >>> clients, mostly lenny. > > >>> > > >>> I think waiting and testing a month is quite ok though. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> To have glusterfs 3.0.3 on ubuntu 9.10 you can also just install > > >>>> > > > the > > > > > >>>> debian package for gluster 3.0.3 with dpkg -i. > > >>>> > > >>>> http://packages.debian.org/source/sid/glusterfs > > >>>> > > >>>> But then 10.04 is only a month away, so depends how much of a rush > > >>>> your in! > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Wednesday 24 Mar 2010 16:45:40 Oliver Hoffmann wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>> Haha, there are loads of Linux distributions out there and even > > >>>>> strange OSes like *BSD or windooze or what's it called? ;-) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I tried out Gentoo a while ago but I droped it because all the > > >>>>> compiling took way too long. The big plus here is the big minus on > > >>>>> debian like systems. The current Ubuntu 9.10 for example has > > >>>>> glusterfs 2.0.9, period. If you want to have 3.0.2 then you have > > >>>>> > > > to > > > > > >>>>> wait for Ubuntu 10.04 or you compile it. > > >>>>> But now that we have (almost) 10.04 with 3.0.2 I'll take this way. > > >>>>> Having such a system up and running on recent hardware is a matter > > >>>>> of maybe 10 or 20 minutes. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Cheers! > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> On 22/03/2010 17:59, Oliver Hoffmann wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Hi all, > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> I just made some tests on two old machines using Ubuntu 10.4 > > >>>>>>> (server i386) with fuse-2.7.4glfs11 and glusterfs-3.0.3. At a > > >>>>>>> first glance it seems to be OK. > > >>>>>>> The next step is deploying a system which could be used for > > >>>>>>> production. What would you suggest? Ubuntu 10.4 (server 64bit) > > >>>>>>> is my first choice because of LTS. Whatsoever, I think it is > > >>>>>>> more the version of glusterfs which makes it stable or not, > > >>>>>>> isn't it? In the end I'd like to have a distributed& > > >>>>>>> replicated storage which provides data for a bunch of > > >>>>>>> (virtualized) LAMPS. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> TIA for your recommendations! > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> I'm intrigued. I had not realised that there were other options > > >>>>>> than Gentoo for use on a server?! (Bang up to date, flexible > > >>>>>> configuration and strong support of various virtualisation > > >>>>>> solutions. Slight negative in update speeds, but can be > > >>>>>> mitigated by using a binary package cache) > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Will try out those new fangled options you suggested above, but > > >>>>>> > > > in > > > > > >>>>>> the meantime have a look at Gentoo (at least if you are fairly > > >>>>>> confident with your linux skills). Big plug for linux-vservers > > >>>>>> also, especially in combination with some custom server profiles > > >>>>>> to define required software versions and options > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Good luck > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Ed W > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>>> Gluster-users mailing list > > >>>>>> Gluster-users@gluster.org > > >>>>>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >>>>> Gluster-users mailing list > > >>>>> Gluster-users@gluster.org > > >>>>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Gluster-users mailing list > > >>> Gluster-users@gluster.org > > >>> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > >>> > > >>> > > >> -- > > >> www.ContactClean.com > > >> Making changing email address as easy as clicking a mouse. > > >> Helping you keep in touch. > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Gluster-users mailing list > > >> Gluster-users@gluster.org > > >> http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gluster-users mailing list > > > Gluster-users@gluster.org > > > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gluster-users mailing list > > > Gluster-users@gluster.org > > > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gluster-users mailing list > > Gluster-users@gluster.org > > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > > -- > GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! > Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 > _______________________________________________ > Gluster-users mailing list > Gluster-users@gluster.org > http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users > _______________________________________________ Gluster-users mailing list Gluster-users@gluster.org http://gluster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gluster-users
