[CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Max Pyziur]

Greetings,

I *do* still have an FC2 box.

Would anyone second this procedure:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=47945

Thanks.

Max Pyziur
p...@brama.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>
> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>
> Would anyone second this procedure:
> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=47945
>

It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
want to do it at this point.  Why not back up anything you might want
to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
wanted?

-- 
  Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Max Pyziur]

On Fri, 25 May 2012, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>>
>> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>>
>> Would anyone second this procedure:
>> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=47945
>>
>
> It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
> want to do it at this point.  Why not back up anything you might want
> to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
> wanted?

It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production 
machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had shown 
up.

So, I need a text 5.x box.

So do you (or anyone) second this or am I going to have to find out on my 
own and report back to you.



Max Pyziur
p...@brama.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>>>
>>> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>>>
>>> Would anyone second this procedure:
>>> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=47945
>>>
>>
>> It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
>> want to do it at this point.  Why not back up anything you might want
>> to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
>> wanted?
>
> It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production
> machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had shown
> up.
>
> So, I need a text 5.x box.

Even so, what's the point of an in-place upgrade compared to a fresh
5.x install?Even if it works, there will be old cruft left around
that you don't need and that may cause surprises later.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 05/25/2012 07:52 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
 I *do* still have an FC2 box.

 Would anyone second this procedure:
 http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=47945

>>> It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
>>> want to do it at this point.  Why not back up anything you might want
>>> to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
>>> wanted?
>> It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production
>> machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had shown
>> up.
>>
>> So, I need a text 5.x box.
> Even so, what's the point of an in-place upgrade compared to a fresh
> 5.x install?Even if it works, there will be old cruft left around
> that you don't need and that may cause surprises later.

What Les said ...

If the production box is already CentOS 5.x ... it would seem to me that
you already know what needs to be done to make your items run on CentOS-5.8.

If you upgrade a Fedora box to CentOS, while it can be done, it will
contain many packages that are not part of CentOS.  It will not be
stable and it will not be a duplicate of your production box.

Backup the old info and wipe the machine, put 5.x on it, bring in the
items you need from the backup (most of which you should know how to do,
since you are already using it on 5.8 in production).

It is not worth the hassle of trying to remove all the Fedora Core items
later on and doing an in-place upgrade ... at least not in my opinion.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Max Pyziur]

> On 05/25/2012 07:52 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
> I *do* still have an FC2 box.
>
> Would anyone second this procedure:
> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=47945
>
 It might possibly work, but I can't quite imagine why anyone would
 want to do it at this point.  Why not back up anything you might want
 to keep, install a nice clean Centos 6.x and put back the files you
 wanted?
>>> It's a test machine that replicates a production server. The production
>>> machine was setup in May 2011 when CentOS was in 5.8 and no 6.x had
>>> shown
>>> up.
>>>
>>> So, I need a text 5.x box.
>> Even so, what's the point of an in-place upgrade compared to a fresh
>> 5.x install?Even if it works, there will be old cruft left around
>> that you don't need and that may cause surprises later.
>
> What Les said ...
>
> If the production box is already CentOS 5.x ... it would seem to me that
> you already know what needs to be done to make your items run on
> CentOS-5.8.
>
> If you upgrade a Fedora box to CentOS, while it can be done, it will
> contain many packages that are not part of CentOS.  It will not be
> stable and it will not be a duplicate of your production box.

The point is to leave configurations, partitions, and other components as
close as possible to being intact. Since this is a server environment,
there are about 700-800 packages, not the 3000 that sit on desktop
machine. Make lists of rpms on the FC2 install, and then sdiff'ing with
the list of rpms installed from the CentOS upgrade should be one way of
identifying non-CentOS packages and/or duplications.

Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
proceed sequentially. But how much difference is there from FC2 to
FC6/CentOS 5.*?

MP
p...@brama.com


> Backup the old info and wipe the machine, put 5.x on it, bring in the
> items you need from the backup (most of which you should know how to do,
> since you are already using it on 5.8 in production).
>
> It is not worth the hassle of trying to remove all the Fedora Core items
> later on and doing an in-place upgrade ... at least not in my opinion.
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>>
> The point is to leave configurations, partitions, and other components as
> close as possible to being intact.

Why isn't the point to match the existing CentOS box in production
closely instead?

> Since this is a server environment,
> there are about 700-800 packages, not the 3000 that sit on desktop
> machine.

If it is a server environment, you should be paying attention to the
supported life of the distribution.  FC2 is long, long past its 'use
by' date.

> Make lists of rpms on the FC2 install, and then sdiff'ing with
> the list of rpms installed from the CentOS upgrade should be one way of
> identifying non-CentOS packages and/or duplications.

Just get the package list from the working C5 box and feed it to
kickstart or to yum after a minimal install.

> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
> proceed sequentially.

No,  it makes sense to upgrade things that were designed and tested as
upgrades, and to re-install things that weren't.  You might, with a
lot of work and care, make the upgrade operational, but the result
will be a one-of-a-kind beast that doesn't belong in a production
environment.

> But how much difference is there from FC2 to
> FC6/CentOS 5.*?

The point is that nobody knows, and there's no reason for anyone to
know.  You weren't supposed to run things that long on Fedora.   But
if you are going to let things go that long again with no maintenance,
I'd recommend jumping all the way to C6 even if it is more work now,
so  'yum update' will take care of it for years.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[m . roth]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:

>> Since this is a server environment, there are about 700-800 packages,
not the 3000
>> that sit on desktop machine.
>
> If it is a server environment, you should be paying attention to the
> supported life of the distribution.  FC2 is long, long past its 'use
> by' date.

Very much so. Almost anywhere I've ever worked, no management would
*allow* a production server that was this far out of date.

Further, if it were up to me, there's *no* way I'd allow fedora in a
production environment. It's a development line; I'd expect management to
demand either RHEL or CentOS, which are stable production-quality lines.
They don't have the latestgreatestmostwonderfulness... but when that moves
into these distros, they're not going to break when you look at them
wrong.
>
> Just get the package list from the working C5 box and feed it to
> kickstart or to yum after a minimal install.
>
>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>> proceed sequentially.

So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>
> No,  it makes sense to upgrade things that were designed and tested as
> upgrades, and to re-install things that weren't.  You might, with a
> lot of work and care, make the upgrade operational, but the result
> will be a one-of-a-kind beast that doesn't belong in a production
> environment.
>
I agree. If someone handed me a mess like that, I'd be building a new
production server, test it, and get that out of production as fast as I
possibly could. If you, or whoever, got another job, or were hit by a car
tomorrow, whoever had to pick it up would be SOL, and it'd probably crash
before they figured out what had been done. It would take you as much time
to document as to
 a) build a new, stable CentOS 5 or 6 box
 b) install everything required on it
 c) recompile anything in-house that needed to be rebuilt
 d) test it all, and put it into production,

and I guarantee that you'd miss documenting something vital.

>> But how much difference is there from FC2 to
>> FC6/CentOS 5.*?

A *lot*.

 mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Max Pyziur]

> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
> 
>>> Since this is a server environment, there are about 700-800 packages,
> not the 3000
>>> that sit on desktop machine.
>>
>> If it is a server environment, you should be paying attention to the
>> supported life of the distribution.  FC2 is long, long past its 'use
>> by' date.
>
> Very much so. Almost anywhere I've ever worked, no management would
> *allow* a production server that was this far out of date.
>
> Further, if it were up to me, there's *no* way I'd allow fedora in a
> production environment. It's a development line; I'd expect management to
> demand either RHEL or CentOS, which are stable production-quality lines.
> They don't have the latestgreatestmostwonderfulness... but when that moves
> into these distros, they're not going to break when you look at them
> wrong.

To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.

Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2 machine
used in a production environment, and no effort was made to create that
impression.


>>
>> Just get the package list from the working C5 box and feed it to
>> kickstart or to yum after a minimal install.
>>
>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>>> proceed sequentially.
>
> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?

Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
my point in starting this thread.

MP
p...@brama.com

>>
>> No,  it makes sense to upgrade things that were designed and tested as
>> upgrades, and to re-install things that weren't.  You might, with a
>> lot of work and care, make the upgrade operational, but the result
>> will be a one-of-a-kind beast that doesn't belong in a production
>> environment.
>>
> I agree. If someone handed me a mess like that, I'd be building a new
> production server, test it, and get that out of production as fast as I
> possibly could. If you, or whoever, got another job, or were hit by a car
> tomorrow, whoever had to pick it up would be SOL, and it'd probably crash
> before they figured out what had been done. It would take you as much time
> to document as to
>  a) build a new, stable CentOS 5 or 6 box
>  b) install everything required on it
>  c) recompile anything in-house that needed to be rebuilt
>  d) test it all, and put it into production,
>
> and I guarantee that you'd miss documenting something vital.
>
>>> But how much difference is there from FC2 to
>>> FC6/CentOS 5.*?
>
> A *lot*.
> 
>  mark
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>
 Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
 proceed sequentially.
>>
>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>
> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
> my point in starting this thread.

My experience with fedora was that a mid-rev update in FC5 included a
kernel that would not run on the fairly mainstream IBM server where I
was running it.   So all bets are off...

-- 
  Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[m . roth]

Max Pyziur wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:

> To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
> router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
> co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.
>
> Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
> Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
> appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2 machine
> used in a production environment, and no effort was made to create that
> impression.

Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.

 Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
 proceed sequentially.
>>
>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>
> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
> my point in starting this thread.

*sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.
with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work to
build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.

mark


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[John R Pierce]

On 05/30/12 9:07 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That was
> my point in starting this thread.

sure.   take new system, clean install 5.latest on it, configure your 
services.  deploy, retire/recycle old box.



-- 
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Max Pyziur]

> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
 On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
> 
>> To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
>> router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
>> co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.
>>
>> Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
>> Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
>> appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2 machine
>> used in a production environment, and no effort was made to create that
>> impression.
>
> Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.

No it wasn't. That was your mistaken interpretation.

> 
> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
> proceed sequentially.
>>>
>>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>>
>> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
>> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That
>> was
>> my point in starting this thread.
>
> *sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.

You should do a better job of signalling your sarcasm.

> with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work to
> build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.

I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
machine.

> 
> mark

Max Pyziur
p...@brama.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[John R Pierce]

On 05/30/12 10:26 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
> machine.

then back it up, wipe it and deploy 5.latest on the old hardware, 
reconfigure all your required services.



-- 
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[m . roth]

Max Pyziur wrote:
>> Max Pyziur wrote:
 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>> 
>>> To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
>>> router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
>>> co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.
>>>
>>> Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
>>> Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
>>> appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2
>>> machine used in a production environment, and no effort was made to
create that
>>> impression.
>>
>> Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.
>
> No it wasn't. That was your mistaken interpretation.

I accept that wasn't what you *intended*. However, what you *wrote* left
that as a reasonable interpretation.


>

>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>> proceed sequentially.

 So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>>>
>>> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
>>> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That
>>> was my point in starting this thread.
>>
>> *sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.
>
> You should do a better job of signalling your sarcasm.

I did not expect you to actually consider that as within reason.
>
>> with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work
>> to build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.
>
> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
> machine.



Fine. Another answer would be to add more disk, if necessary, and build
5.8 on the machine, in such a manner as to allow you to reboot into either
the current or the new version. For further clarification as to what I'm
suggesting, try reading my other published article:


mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Max Pyziur]

> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>> Max Pyziur wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>>> 
 To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
 router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
 co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.

 Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
 Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components
 to
 appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2
 machine used in a production environment, and no effort was made to
> create that
 impression.
>>>
>>> Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.
>>
>> No it wasn't. That was your mistaken interpretation.
>
> I accept that wasn't what you *intended*. However, what you *wrote* left
> that as a reasonable interpretation.

Here is what I wrote:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126307.html

"... It's a test machine that replicates a production server. ..."

How would you improve it in order to remedy the apparent confusion?


> 
>>
> 
>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense
>>> to
>>> proceed sequentially.
>
> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?

 Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
 knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That
 was my point in starting this thread.
>>>
>>> *sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.
>>
>> You should do a better job of signalling your sarcasm.
>
> I did not expect you to actually consider that as within reason.
>>
>>> with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work
>>> to build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.
>>
>> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use
>> what
>> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my
>> interest
>> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the
>> production
>> machine.
>
> 
>
> Fine. Another answer would be to add more disk, if necessary, and build
> 5.8 on the machine, in such a manner as to allow you to reboot into either
> the current or the new version. For further clarification as to what I'm
> suggesting, try reading my other published article:
> 

Thanks. I've already looked at it.

I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships. Given
that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
for a recommendation for a clean install.

Thanks.

Max Pyziur
p...@brama.com

> mark
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>
> Here is what I wrote:
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126307.html
>
> "... It's a test machine that replicates a production server. ..."
>
> How would you improve it in order to remedy the apparent confusion?

But in an earlier post you said it was a 'server environment' which at
least sort-of implies that it is serving something.

>
> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships.

Fedora doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
versions or at least didn't for those versions.  My experience was
that even within a major rev. an update could kill your system.
CentOS doesn't support/recommend  in-place upgrades across major
versions.

> Given
> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

I have seen success stories for FC6->CentOS conversions, along with
some quirky stuff you have to to to fix it up.  If you google enough
you might be able to do that.  However, FC2 was not at all like FC6
and I doubt if you'll find anyone who has made that or even a part of
the FC2->FC6 path work.   It would be crazy to try that without good
backups.  But if you have a place for the backups, you could use it
instead to install and test a system that will work.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Bowie Bailey]

On 5/30/2012 2:21 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships. Given
> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

The issue here is that upgrading between major versions (CentOS 4.x to
5.x) is not supported or recommended.  And if it is not recommended to
upgrade from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, it is even less recommended to try an
upgrade from Fedora Core 2 to CentOS 5.

As has been mentioned before, the results of the upgrade will be a box
that claims to be CentOS, but has lots of extraneous packages and files
left behind from the previous Fedora install.  This will result in a
system that seems to run fine, but is likely to have strange problems
from time to time when something tries to use one of these old files.

-- 
Bowie
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[John R Pierce]

On 05/30/12 11:21 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

there is no other sane approach.   you can upgrade the system a half 
dozen times through those intermediate versions, and sort out every 
issue that comes along, or you can build a clean new system (either on 
the same hardware or not) and do it all at once.

this is a test/dev box for an existing EL5 production system?   make a 
backup of the production system and restore it on the dev box, 
reconfigure the network, yum install any additional development packages 
(C compilers, etc), done, go home and have a beer.




-- 
john r pierceN 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Max Pyziur]

> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>>
>> Here is what I wrote:
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126307.html
>>
>> "... It's a test machine that replicates a production server. ..."
>>
>> How would you improve it in order to remedy the apparent confusion?
>
> But in an earlier post you said it was a 'server environment' which at
> least sort-of implies that it is serving something.

The third post in the thread is the link that I cited above.

The first post in the thread (mine) -
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126303.html
- reads as follows

" ...Greetings,

I *do* still have an FC2 box.

Would anyone second this procedure:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=47945

Thanks.
..."


In the course of the discussion, I did reference that it was a backup/test
machine to a co-located CentOS box that is a production server.

But I clarified early in the thread that it was not production.

So how would you clarify the sentence of my second (and the third) posting
of the thread so that it is unequivocally clear that it is not a
production machine?



>>
>> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to
>> use
>> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to
>> build
>> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships.
>
> Fedora doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
> versions or at least didn't for those versions.  My experience was
> that even within a major rev. an update could kill your system.
> CentOS doesn't support/recommend  in-place upgrades across major
> versions.

That was made very clear in discussions following the introduction of
CentOS 6.x.


>> Given
>> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
>> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
>> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
>> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
>> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet
>> looking
>> for a recommendation for a clean install.
>
> I have seen success stories for FC6->CentOS conversions, along with
> some quirky stuff you have to to to fix it up.  If you google enough
> you might be able to do that.  However, FC2 was not at all like FC6
> and I doubt if you'll find anyone who has made that or even a part of
> the FC2->FC6 path work.   It would be crazy to try that without good
> backups.  But if you have a place for the backups, you could use it
> instead to install and test a system that will work.

Thank you; this is very helpful.

My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
topology, and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing configurations.

I have enough experience with unraveling rpm package
dependency/duplication issues, having gone through F14->F15 DVD upgrade
that failed/froze (in the end I worked with the "rescue" portion of the
DVD and unraveled duplicate/missing package issues using yum and rpm; you
can find that thread on the Fedora Users list).

>
> --
>Les Mikesell
>  lesmikes...@gmail.com

MP
p...@brama.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 05/30/2012 12:37 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/30/12 10:26 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
>> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
>> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
>> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
>> machine.
> then back it up, wipe it and deploy 5.latest on the old hardware, 
> reconfigure all your required services.

exactly!



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>
> Am 30.05.2012 20:36, schrieb Les Mikesell:
>> Fedora doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
>> versions or at least didn't for those versions.  My experience was
>> that even within a major rev. an update could kill your system.
>
> then you are doing something wrong

Yes, I was running it on an IBM server box that they didn't bother to
test.   Found out much later that the pre-update kernel worked on the
firmware I had installed and the mid-rev update they pushed needed a
firmware bios update to run there.

> am i really the only one who did some hundret successfull
> fedora dist-upgrades in the last 4 years with yum and
> no downtime longer than a normal kernel update?

Probably.  Lots of other things broke in same-major-rev updates until
I gave up at FC6.  Whether any particular machine runs or not has
never been a priority for fedora.  Maybe your hardware matches one of
the developers.   On the other hand, I had 2 4-year uptime runs with a
pre-fedora RH 7.3.  (had to move it once).  For about 6 of those years
it was very busy.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[m . roth]

Max Pyziur wrote:
>> Max Pyziur wrote:
 Max Pyziur wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:

>
> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships. Given
> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

And we *all* are saying that doing other than a clean install, or a
parallel install, as I suggested in the article, is a bad idea.

 mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
> Thank you; this is very helpful.
>
> My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
> topology,

But that takes a couple of minutes - or you could use the saved
kickstart info if FC2 saved it back then.  Or install on the existing
partitions.

> and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing configurations.

And the part that matters should be in a dozen or so files in /etc.
Save copies, diff/merge anything you don't understand well enough to
do from scratch.   Another few minutes.

> I have enough experience with unraveling rpm package
> dependency/duplication issues, having gone through F14->F15 DVD upgrade
> that failed/froze (in the end I worked with the "rescue" portion of the
> DVD and unraveled duplicate/missing package issues using yum and rpm; you
> can find that thread on the Fedora Users list).

So you know that can take a long time to get right...  I don't see the
point of even considering it.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Lamar Owen]

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 02:56:24 PM Max Pyziur wrote:
> My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
> topology, and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing configurations.

I have tried this type of upgrade before; I have not had it go well for the 
most part.  The only way I'd try to do an FC2 to C5 upgrade is by incrementally 
upgrading up to FC4 or FC5 using install media, then boot the C5.8 install 
media with 'upgradeany'.  It may break things very badly.

I have had to do this sort of upgrade on SPARC systems running Aurora SPARC 
Linux; did a yum-based upgrade up through a few revs, and it was a pain.  I 
only did it because install media wasn't already available, and you had to go 
backrev to get booting media on my particular box (although the installed 
system worked fine once installed).  It is really something I would rather not 
do without the preupgrade logic in place, primarily because of non-repo or 
third-party repo packages that may or may not be around any more on a newer 
repo; for that matter, the Fedora package set in the FC2 days is likely to be 
larger than the C5 package set unless you enable third party repos at 
install/upgrade time, and that isn't guaranteed to work.

This sort of discussion is in the archives several times, and I think I have 
put my particular recipe out there before.  It is recommended by the upstream 
vendor, Red Hat, to not do any major version upgrades from one version of EL to 
another.  EL4 was based from around FC3, and you are essentially talking about 
a direct upgrade from a pre-EL4 to EL5; these two are more different than you 
might think. (see 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Relationship_to_free_and_community_distributions
 for info)

Beyond that, the upgradeany path is probably the least tested of all the 
anaconda install paths, and will likely traceback at the worst possible time.  
Upgrades aren't easy (even on Debian/Ubuntu where packages being upgraded can 
ask questions and do significant things, unlike in the RPM scriptlet case).  
Preupgrade has failed for me more than it has worked, going through several 
revs of Fedora.

Having said all of that, if you analyze your particular package set and you 
figure out that all of the packages have identical configs between FC2 (or EL4, 
for that matter) and EL5, and that you're not using a package that has had 
major changes and upgrades break data (like PostgreSQL; FC2 shipped a 
significantly older PostgreSQL than CentOS 5 does, and a major version upgrade 
on PostgreSQL requires some special handling), you might be able to get it to 
work.

But it will probably take more time to successfully upgrade than it will to do 
a fresh install with the same list of packages and a restore of compatible 
configurations onto that fresh install.  But, it's your time to waste if you 
want to do so.

If you want to see this sort of thing on the MS OS, there is a YouTube video 
out there highlighting upgrading through all versions of Windows; the cruft 
leftover from Window 1.0, 2.0, and 3.x in a Windows 7 upgraded system is a 
thing to behold.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

[Les Mikesell]

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Reindl Harald  wrote:
>
> i will not buy the argument with the hardware because
> i had in the last years 4 notebooks, 3 workstations
> and two different notebooks of my co-developer which
> all done many dist-upgrades well if you know how
> to prepare and cleanup

What does 'last years' mean in kernels?  New kernels have gotten
better.A google for "FC5 kernel Oops'  has 'about 334,000
results', so I'm not the only one.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this? - general report

[Max Pyziur]

> On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 02:56:24 PM Max Pyziur wrote:
>> My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
>> topology, and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing
>> configurations.
>
> I have tried this type of upgrade before; I have not had it go well for
> the most part.  The only way I'd try to do an FC2 to C5 upgrade is by
> incrementally upgrading up to FC4 or FC5 using install media, then boot
> the C5.8 install media with 'upgradeany'.  It may break things very badly.

Just to advise the general readership. I downloaded iso's for FC3, FC4,
FC5 DVD install discs, and their accompanying rescue CDs.

The machine under consideration is old by contemporary standards (a
PIII-1400 w/ 1.5GB RAM, and three discs, one 2TB in size generally used to
store backups.

The FC2->FC3->FC4-FC5 upgrades were done in about three hours; the time
was split between checking the integrity of the DVDs and CDs and the
upgrade. Today, I did the FC5->CentOS5.8 upgrade.

In each phase, the machine booted and functioned.

I recognized the postgresql issue you mention further in your posting;
I've been through something like that several times, so I know how to work
through it.

All-in-all, this has been easy; nothing like the FC14-FC15 DVD upgrade on
my desktop that froze that I did two weeks ago (there, I spent a very
large amount of time unraveling dependency issues and package
duplications). I hope to do other FC upgrades in the spirit of being
current, but I anticipate that it won't be as easy as the FC2 -> CentOS5.8
has been so far.

I recognize that most of the comments were from sysadmins, more involved
in managing server farms, and steeped in that knowledge/experience base.

Much thanks to thoughtful comments and cautions,

fyi,

Max Pyziur
p...@brama.com

> I have had to do this sort of upgrade on SPARC systems running Aurora
> SPARC Linux; did a yum-based upgrade up through a few revs, and it was a
> pain.  I only did it because install media wasn't already available, and
> you had to go backrev to get booting media on my particular box (although
> the installed system worked fine once installed).  It is really something
> I would rather not do without the preupgrade logic in place, primarily
> because of non-repo or third-party repo packages that may or may not be
> around any more on a newer repo; for that matter, the Fedora package set
> in the FC2 days is likely to be larger than the C5 package set unless you
> enable third party repos at install/upgrade time, and that isn't
> guaranteed to work.
>
> This sort of discussion is in the archives several times, and I think I
> have put my particular recipe out there before.  It is recommended by the
> upstream vendor, Red Hat, to not do any major version upgrades from one
> version of EL to another.  EL4 was based from around FC3, and you are
> essentially talking about a direct upgrade from a pre-EL4 to EL5; these
> two are more different than you might think. (see
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux#Relationship_to_free_and_community_distributions
> for info)
>
> Beyond that, the upgradeany path is probably the least tested of all the
> anaconda install paths, and will likely traceback at the worst possible
> time.  Upgrades aren't easy (even on Debian/Ubuntu where packages being
> upgraded can ask questions and do significant things, unlike in the RPM
> scriptlet case).  Preupgrade has failed for me more than it has worked,
> going through several revs of Fedora.
>
> Having said all of that, if you analyze your particular package set and
> you figure out that all of the packages have identical configs between FC2
> (or EL4, for that matter) and EL5, and that you're not using a package
> that has had major changes and upgrades break data (like PostgreSQL; FC2
> shipped a significantly older PostgreSQL than CentOS 5 does, and a major
> version upgrade on PostgreSQL requires some special handling), you might
> be able to get it to work.
>
> But it will probably take more time to successfully upgrade than it will
> to do a fresh install with the same list of packages and a restore of
> compatible configurations onto that fresh install.  But, it's your time to
> waste if you want to do so.
>
> If you want to see this sort of thing on the MS OS, there is a YouTube
> video out there highlighting upgrading through all versions of Windows;
> the cruft leftover from Window 1.0, 2.0, and 3.x in a Windows 7 upgraded
> system is a thing to behold.
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this? - general report

[Ross Walker]

On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, "Max Pyziur"  wrote:

>> On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 02:56:24 PM Max Pyziur wrote:
>>> My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
>>> topology, and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing
>>> configurations.
>> 
>> I have tried this type of upgrade before; I have not had it go well for
>> the most part.  The only way I'd try to do an FC2 to C5 upgrade is by
>> incrementally upgrading up to FC4 or FC5 using install media, then boot
>> the C5.8 install media with 'upgradeany'.  It may break things very badly.
> 
> Just to advise the general readership. I downloaded iso's for FC3, FC4,
> FC5 DVD install discs, and their accompanying rescue CDs.
> 
> The machine under consideration is old by contemporary standards (a
> PIII-1400 w/ 1.5GB RAM, and three discs, one 2TB in size generally used to
> store backups.
> 
> The FC2->FC3->FC4-FC5 upgrades were done in about three hours; the time
> was split between checking the integrity of the DVDs and CDs and the
> upgrade. Today, I did the FC5->CentOS5.8 upgrade.
> 
> In each phase, the machine booted and functioned.
> 
> I recognized the postgresql issue you mention further in your posting;
> I've been through something like that several times, so I know how to work
> through it.
> 
> All-in-all, this has been easy; nothing like the FC14-FC15 DVD upgrade on
> my desktop that froze that I did two weeks ago (there, I spent a very
> large amount of time unraveling dependency issues and package
> duplications). I hope to do other FC upgrades in the spirit of being
> current, but I anticipate that it won't be as easy as the FC2 -> CentOS5.8
> has been so far.
> 
> I recognize that most of the comments were from sysadmins, more involved
> in managing server farms, and steeped in that knowledge/experience base.
> 
> Much thanks to thoughtful comments and cautions,


You might want to crawl /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr and /var for files not under 
management and see if you have anything left over.

I might use find here,

# find /etc -type f -exec rpm -qf \{\} \; -print

Of course the rpm command should be tweaked so it it just returns an error code 
if the file isn't in the database instead of any output and have find -print 
the path so you can redirect the output to a file.

Remember not all files not under management are orphan files, so you will need 
to use some knowledge to figure out which you can rm.

-Ross

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this? - general report

[Les Mikesell]

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>
> I recognize that most of the comments were from sysadmins, more involved
> in managing server farms, and steeped in that knowledge/experience base.

And in upgrades, and thus have experience with the difference in
effort and results

And you still have yet to explain what you think the result of the
extra hours of downloading and work has gained compared to a clean
install and copying your data back.   As far as I can see, it is a
bunch of orphaned files, a wildly fragmented disk layout, and probably
a less efficient filesystem.   This is especially true since you
mentioned having several disks, one probably large enough to hold a
complete backup of the old system disk so you could easily pick out
what you want back in the new install.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this? - general report

[Max Pyziur]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>>
>> I recognize that most of the comments were from sysadmins, more involved
>> in managing server farms, and steeped in that knowledge/experience base.
>
> And in upgrades, and thus have experience with the difference in
> effort and results

My point was that it is a different focus, knowledge, and experience base. 
If server farm system administration is what you know, then you will place
all issues in that framework. If all you know how to use is a jackhammer, 
then you'll approach every problem in the same way.

My personal goal was to preserve the topology of the disk layout, as well 
as the configurations.

> And you still have yet to explain what you think the result of the
> extra hours of downloading and work has gained compared to a clean

What extra hours? The downloading was done overnight, the diskburning was 
relatively quick.

> install and copying your data back.   As far as I can see, it is a
> bunch of orphaned files, a wildly fragmented disk layout, and probably

This is now an example of a casebook fallacy - a strawman argument. W/o 
investigating anything, you've projected a set of unsubstantiated 
qualifications on a situation and are now arguing against them.

> a less efficient filesystem.   This is especially true since you
> mentioned having several disks, one probably large enough to hold a
> complete backup of the old system disk so you could easily pick out
> what you want back in the new install.

The 2TB disk is where backups for several resident machines resides 
(notebooks, desktops); it's about 84% full. Admittedly, there's space for 
configurations, but that was not my first interest (I think that I've 
stated that at least twice).

MP
p...@brama.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this? - general report

[Max Pyziur]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Ross Walker wrote:

> On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:55 PM, "Max Pyziur"  wrote:
>

[... deleted for the sake of brevity ...]


>> Much thanks to thoughtful comments and cautions,
>
>
> You might want to crawl /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr and /var for files not under 
> management and see if you have anything left over.
>
> I might use find here,
>
> # find /etc -type f -exec rpm -qf \{\} \; -print
>
> Of course the rpm command should be tweaked so it it just returns an error 
> code if the file isn't in the database instead of any output and have find 
> -print the path so you can redirect the output to a file.
>
> Remember not all files not under management are orphan files, so you will 
> need to use some knowledge to figure out which you can rm.

Great advice, and I'll take it up shortly.

Much thanks.

MP
p...@brama.com

>
> -Ross
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this? - general report

[Les Mikesell]

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:
>
> My personal goal was to preserve the topology of the disk layout, as well
> as the configurations.

Which are trivial to reproduce.   And potentially improve in the process.

>> And you still have yet to explain what you think the result of the
>> extra hours of downloading and work has gained compared to a clean
>
> What extra hours? The downloading was done overnight, the diskburning was
> relatively quick.

You did mention several intermediate versions that would not have been
needed.  You can't possibly claim it did not take extra time.

>> install and copying your data back.   As far as I can see, it is a
>> bunch of orphaned files, a wildly fragmented disk layout, and probably
>
> This is now an example of a casebook fallacy - a strawman argument. W/o
> investigating anything, you've projected a set of unsubstantiated
> qualifications on a situation and are now arguing against them.

No, I'm asking what you think you gained, and you still can't describe
how your result is an improvement over a fresh install.

> The 2TB disk is where backups for several resident machines resides
> (notebooks, desktops); it's about 84% full. Admittedly, there's space for
> configurations, but that was not my first interest (I think that I've
> stated that at least twice).

Yes, you did say that, but why?   Did you just want to prove it can be
done the hard way, or do you think your machine is somehow better now?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this? - general report

[Max Pyziur]

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012, Les Mikesell wrote:


On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Max Pyziur  wrote:


My personal goal was to preserve the topology of the disk layout, as well
as the configurations.


Which are trivial to reproduce.   And potentially improve in the process.


It may be trivial for you, but not for me.


And you still have yet to explain what you think the result of the
extra hours of downloading and work has gained compared to a clean


What extra hours? The downloading was done overnight, the diskburning was
relatively quick.


You did mention several intermediate versions that would not have been
needed.  You can't possibly claim it did not take extra time.


I measured the amount of time that it took against a recent FC14->FC15 
upgrade via DVD. That took the bulk of a weekend.


This series of sequential upgrades took a few hours.


install and copying your data back.   As far as I can see, it is a
bunch of orphaned files, a wildly fragmented disk layout, and probably


This is now an example of a casebook fallacy - a strawman argument. W/o
investigating anything, you've projected a set of unsubstantiated
qualifications on a situation and are now arguing against them.


No, I'm asking what you think you gained, and you still can't describe
how your result is an improvement over a fresh install.


Ok, I sense that there is some sort of affront and that you need to defend 
yourself. I'm not challenging you, your experience, your capabilities, and 
your knowledge. They are commendable.


Nevertheless, what several individuals, including yourself, have presented 
is that a fresh install is the optimal solution; anything else has 
elevated risk. In my case, I've preserved my disk topology and my 
configurations, which was one of my priorities; I've expended a few hours, 
and I'm doing other things.



The 2TB disk is where backups for several resident machines resides
(notebooks, desktops); it's about 84% full. Admittedly, there's space for
configurations, but that was not my first interest (I think that I've
stated that at least twice).


Yes, you did say that, but why?   Did you just want to prove it can be
done the hard way, or do you think your machine is somehow better now?


Never said this is the hard way; but it definitely is not that 
challenging, especially since I don't have the experience or knowledge of 
yeoman sysadmins.


And I'm not seeking to win a trophy for my machine; I'm seeking basic and 
simple continuity.



fyi,

MP
p...@brama.com___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos