Re: Closest to Debian
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:41:52PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > > That's only an issue if the first drive dies and at the same time > > something forces a system reboot. What's the chance of those two things > > happening at the same time while not rendering the machine totally > > unusable (IE dead motherboard or something equally serious)? > > High, because it's been 250 days since you last rebooted and the drive > has been self-lubricating with sintered spindle. So you're suggesting that the drive is near to death and then you have a power failure which finally kills it? It's a possibility, but I've seen ~20 drives die while in use, and 1 drive die while the power was off. So I don't think it's that likely. You just have to balance the percieved risk vs the price. For most of my machines software RAID is the best option. If you have more money and less tolerance of such risks then you may choose differently. > Or maybe you've updated > your boot scripts or lilo without rebooting in the past year or > so. If you have a lilo configuration problem or any one of a hundred different potential problems in the boot sequence then nothing will save you. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:41:52PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > That's only an issue if the first drive dies and at the same time something > forces a system reboot. What's the chance of those two things happening at > the same time while not rendering the machine totally unusable (IE dead > motherboard or something equally serious)? High, because it's been 250 days since you last rebooted and the drive has been self-lubricating with sintered spindle. Or maybe you've updated your boot scripts or lilo without rebooting in the past year or so. -- Christopher F. Miller, Publisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] MaineStreet Communications, Inc 208 Portland Road, Gray, ME 04039 1.207.657.5078 http://www.maine.com/ Content/site management, online commerce, internet integration, Debian linux -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 12:22, Jason Lim wrote: > > > (as mentioned earlier in the thread, software RAID yields unacceptable > > > performance when there are problems, so for now we'll be going with > > the > > > Use the latest version of LILO, put the LILO boot sector on the start of > > the > > > RAID device for /boot (NB this means you can't use XFS for the file > > system > > > that contains /boot), and install a debian-mbr on both disks. Then if > > the > > > first disk dies you should be able to just swap the disks and have it > > bootable again! > > Unfortunately, if this happens at 3am in the morning, no one wants to go > and manually swap the disk caddies (thats the name for the part that holds > the disk, right?). That's only an issue if the first drive dies and at the same time something forces a system reboot. What's the chance of those two things happening at the same time while not rendering the machine totally unusable (IE dead motherboard or something equally serious)? > If we go the hardware route, this *should* not be > required as the hardware *should* handle that transparently. Or so I hear. True. > We have a number of "managed" dedicated servers where we do everything... > those are a real hassle to work all the time, but what you pay is what you > get (for the clients). However, I've never had the courage to do a BOFH > act... have you? ;-) What do you mean by a "BOFH act"? The answer is probably. ;) -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
> OK. Incidentally you might want to get on the mailing list for discussing > IDE RAID. > > Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > "subscribe linux-ide-arrays" in the body. > > When 3ware dropped their IDE RAID everyone on that list hassled them, so they > started making them again. The people on that list seem very happy with the > 3ware hardware. When 3ware dropped it people there were putting in emergency > orders for the IDE controllers they would need for the next few years (so > they seemed happy to use them even if the company dumped them). Definately sounds like a mailing list I need to join, especially if I do use the 3ware cards. > > (as mentioned earlier in the thread, software RAID yields unacceptable > > performance when there are problems, so for now we'll be going with the > > Use the latest version of LILO, put the LILO boot sector on the start of the > RAID device for /boot (NB this means you can't use XFS for the file system > that contains /boot), and install a debian-mbr on both disks. Then if the > first disk dies you should be able to just swap the disks and have it > bootable again! Unfortunately, if this happens at 3am in the morning, no one wants to go and manually swap the disk caddies (thats the name for the part that holds the disk, right?). If we go the hardware route, this *should* not be required as the hardware *should* handle that transparently. Or so I hear. I will go ask the raid pros on the RAID mailing list and see what they think. > > Hope our clients (your's too) know the trouble us sysadmins go through ;-) > > Yes, my client knows about this well. They do some of the sys-admin work > themselves (everything that's not really hard). When anything related to > binary kernel modules gets done I get called, often several times! > We have a number of "managed" dedicated servers where we do everything... those are a real hassle to work all the time, but what you pay is what you get (for the clients). However, I've never had the courage to do a BOFH act... have you? ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:54, Jason Lim wrote: > > If you install hardware that requires a binary-only driver then that's a > > mistake you will probably regret for years. Use software RAID, spend > > more > > > money to get a Mylex DAC960 with SCSI drives, do anything but using a > > binary-only driver. > > Point taken. > > As far as I can see, only 3ware has an open source IDE RAID driver > available. Everyone else has binary-only ones. SO... I guess we'll be > spending a bit more money and buying the 3ware driver. OK. Incidentally you might want to get on the mailing list for discussing IDE RAID. Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "subscribe linux-ide-arrays" in the body. When 3ware dropped their IDE RAID everyone on that list hassled them, so they started making them again. The people on that list seem very happy with the 3ware hardware. When 3ware dropped it people there were putting in emergency orders for the IDE controllers they would need for the next few years (so they seemed happy to use them even if the company dumped them). > (as mentioned earlier in the thread, software RAID yields unacceptable > performance when there are problems, so for now we'll be going with the Use the latest version of LILO, put the LILO boot sector on the start of the RAID device for /boot (NB this means you can't use XFS for the file system that contains /boot), and install a debian-mbr on both disks. Then if the first disk dies you should be able to just swap the disks and have it bootable again! > Hope our clients (your's too) know the trouble us sysadmins go through ;-) Yes, my client knows about this well. They do some of the sys-admin work themselves (everything that's not really hard). When anything related to binary kernel modules gets done I get called, often several times! -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
> If you install hardware that requires a binary-only driver then that's a > mistake you will probably regret for years. Use software RAID, spend more > money to get a Mylex DAC960 with SCSI drives, do anything but using a > binary-only driver. > Point taken. As far as I can see, only 3ware has an open source IDE RAID driver available. Everyone else has binary-only ones. SO... I guess we'll be spending a bit more money and buying the 3ware driver. (as mentioned earlier in the thread, software RAID yields unacceptable performance when there are problems, so for now we'll be going with the hardware RAID. As usual, all this was suppose to be implemented yesterday, if you know what I mean). Hope our clients (your's too) know the trouble us sysadmins go through ;-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 00:18, Jason Lim wrote: > > The Red Hat version only supports kernel 2.4.2, expect it to fail on > > 2.4.17+ > > > because there have been significant changes. Also expect it to work on > > the > > > Red Hat 2.4.2 kernel but not a standard 2.4.2 kernel because Red Hat > > apply > > > significant patches to their kernels. > > Sigh. Do we know exactly what kernel patches/modifications Redhat makes to > their default kernels? As Michael suggested, you could download the source RPM and then compile a Debian package from it. > > I recommend that you avoid purchasing from companies that only provide > > binary > > > kernel modules. When you use such modules you taint your kernel (thus > > making > > > the kernel developers unwilling to look into any bug reports you might > > file), > > > and you make it very difficult for yourself when it comes time to > > upgrade. > > > I suggest doing one of two things: > > > > 1) Download a kernel rpm for Red Hat and use alien to install it. > > > > 2) Use another hardware supplier. > > Sigh... are we going to become like the Mac... where the rest of the world > supports OTHER software that we don't use? That is... it seems like more > and more hardware/software producers are making stuff FOR Redhat, and not > supporting anything else except that. What happens to the rest of us? If > we don't also use Redhat we either have compatibility problems, or have to > hack away at it to get it to work (and even if it DOES work, it may be > flaky). Not at all. If you use that hardware on Red Hat and have a kernel Oops then what happens? You post a message on the linux-kernel list and everyone says "your kernel is tainted, boot without that non-free kernel module and then try and reproduce it". You ask Red Hat but I doubt that they'll support kernel Oops debugging unless you send them a moderate amount of money. You ask the hardware vendor but they say "our driver is perfect, it's because we don't want to share this perfect code for our rivals to copy that we release it as binary-only not because we are trying to hide hundreds of bugs, perhaps your motherboard is broken", so you end up being forced to replace the device with a Mylex DAC960 or some other hardware RAID device with proper support. One of my clients has a binary-only kernel module on one of their servers. It has caused me more pain than you want to imagine. Every time I want to upgrade their kernel it's an upgrade on all machines but that one because the crappy vendor never supports recent kernels. The author of the device driver in question used to be on one of the Linux mailing lists, until his posts of "Linux sucks you should use BSD" got him flamed off the list. If you install hardware that requires a binary-only driver then that's a mistake you will probably regret for years. Use software RAID, spend more money to get a Mylex DAC960 with SCSI drives, do anything but using a binary-only driver. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:18:47PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: [snip] > > The Red Hat version only supports kernel 2.4.2, expect it to > > fail on 2.4.17+ because there have been significant changes. > > Also expect it to work on the Red Hat 2.4.2 kernel but not a > > standard 2.4.2 kernel because Red Hat apply significant > > patches to their kernels. > > Sigh. Do we know exactly what kernel patches/modifications > Redhat makes to their default kernels? If you want to see what patches they apply to their kernels, download their kernel source rpm and have a look. [snip] > Sigh... are we going to become like the Mac... where the rest > of the world supports OTHER software that we don't use? That > is... it seems like more and more hardware/software producers > are making stuff FOR Redhat, and not supporting anything else > except that. What happens to the rest of us? If we don't also > use Redhat we either have compatibility problems, or have to > hack away at it to get it to work (and even if it DOES work, > it may be flaky). [snip] If you're worried about that (or even if you're not) then support vendors that have open source drivers. -- Michael Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
> > I'm running the 2.4.17 kernels, so... I'm GUESSING Redhat 7.1 would be > > closest since 7.1 ships with a 2.4 kernel? Perhaps there are some other > > things to consider as well? > > The Red Hat version only supports kernel 2.4.2, expect it to fail on 2.4.17+ > because there have been significant changes. Also expect it to work on the > Red Hat 2.4.2 kernel but not a standard 2.4.2 kernel because Red Hat apply > significant patches to their kernels. Sigh. Do we know exactly what kernel patches/modifications Redhat makes to their default kernels? > I recommend that you avoid purchasing from companies that only provide binary > kernel modules. When you use such modules you taint your kernel (thus making > the kernel developers unwilling to look into any bug reports you might file), > and you make it very difficult for yourself when it comes time to upgrade. > > I suggest doing one of two things: > > 1) Download a kernel rpm for Red Hat and use alien to install it. > > 2) Use another hardware supplier. Sigh... are we going to become like the Mac... where the rest of the world supports OTHER software that we don't use? That is... it seems like more and more hardware/software producers are making stuff FOR Redhat, and not supporting anything else except that. What happens to the rest of us? If we don't also use Redhat we either have compatibility problems, or have to hack away at it to get it to work (and even if it DOES work, it may be flaky). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:16, Mark Janssen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:35:43PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > > Of the Linux distributions supported by Promise (at > > > http://support.promise.com/Linux/Default.htm), which is "closest" to > > > Debian. That is, which requires the least modification to get working > > > with Debian unstable? > > > > Why not just use Debian ?? > > I think that was his aim. Exactly. I am running Debian systems, but these companies only provide binaries for Redhat, Suse, etc., so I was wondering which "other" distribution is closest/compatible to Debian, so there is a higher chance the binary will work. > > Debian can do anything RedHat / Suse can do, but better... :) I *KNOW* that... thats why I'm using Debian! > > Driver support is only a kernel issue, never a distro issue, and it's > > always handy to compile your own kernels, even if you only use hardware > > supported directly by the distro kernel. > > It appears that in this case the driver is binary-only, so compiling your own > kernel is not so handy. > Thats the problem... some of these binaries are linked to various distro-specific libraries and stuff. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 19:16, Mark Janssen wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:35:43PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > > Of the Linux distributions supported by Promise (at > > http://support.promise.com/Linux/Default.htm), which is "closest" to > > Debian. That is, which requires the least modification to get working > > with Debian unstable? > > Why not just use Debian ?? I think that was his aim. > Debian can do anything RedHat / Suse can do, but better... :) > > Driver support is only a kernel issue, never a distro issue, and it's > always handy to compile your own kernels, even if you only use hardware > supported directly by the distro kernel. It appears that in this case the driver is binary-only, so compiling your own kernel is not so handy. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:35:43PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote: > Of the Linux distributions supported by Promise (at > http://support.promise.com/Linux/Default.htm), which is "closest" to > Debian. That is, which requires the least modification to get working with > Debian unstable? Why not just use Debian ?? Debian can do anything RedHat / Suse can do, but better... :) Driver support is only a kernel issue, never a distro issue, and it's always handy to compile your own kernels, even if you only use hardware supported directly by the distro kernel. Mark Janssen Unix / Linux, Open-Source and Internet Consultant @ SyConOS IT E-mail: mark(at)markjanssen.nl / maniac(at)maniac.nl GnuPG Key Id: 357D2178 Web: Maniac.nl Unix-God.[Net|Org] MarkJanssen.[com|net|org|nl] SyConOS.[com|nl] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Closest to Debian
On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:35, Jason Lim wrote: > Of the Linux distributions supported by Promise (at > http://support.promise.com/Linux/Default.htm), which is "closest" to > Debian. That is, which requires the least modification to get working with > Debian unstable? > > RedHat > 6.2/7.0/7.1 > > SuSE > 7.1/7.2 > > OpenLinux 3.1 > > > TurboLinux Server 6.5 > > I'm running the 2.4.17 kernels, so... I'm GUESSING Redhat 7.1 would be > closest since 7.1 ships with a 2.4 kernel? Perhaps there are some other > things to consider as well? The Red Hat version only supports kernel 2.4.2, expect it to fail on 2.4.17+ because there have been significant changes. Also expect it to work on the Red Hat 2.4.2 kernel but not a standard 2.4.2 kernel because Red Hat apply significant patches to their kernels. I recommend that you avoid purchasing from companies that only provide binary kernel modules. When you use such modules you taint your kernel (thus making the kernel developers unwilling to look into any bug reports you might file), and you make it very difficult for yourself when it comes time to upgrade. I suggest doing one of two things: 1) Download a kernel rpm for Red Hat and use alien to install it. 2) Use another hardware supplier. -- http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
