Re: Is Scientfic Linux Still Active as a Distribution?
Hi, I'm surprised by the so negative feeling against CentOS which is a great project too and has been working well since it was "acquired" by Red Hat. I see no official sign that it should change. Moving from SL to CentOS is straightforward, I don't think you can speak about it as a migration as it is exactly the same product. And staying with CentOS will give you a chance to meet the DUNE people at some point and more generally the HEP community if you liked interacting with it! Cheers, Michel Le 21/02/2020 à 16:32, Peter Willis a écrit : Hello, Thanks to everyone for clarifying the future status of SL. I guess it’s time to start researching he docs for Ubuntu/Debian or something. Looks like we need to revise our computing cluster plan. The computer here is pretty small with only two nodes and a controller totalling 112 CPUs. We use it for numerical modelling of ocean and river currents and sediment transport (OpenMP/MPICH/FORTRAN). The changeover will be pretty small. We are still waiting for the OK for a new node or two. The current nodes are ten years old. The update to a controller and SL7 was a last ditch effort to join the two nodes and increase the scale of the models without costing too much more. In other news, the link you shared has an article about ‘DUNE’ which seems like an interesting project. I’d certainly frostbite a few toes to just stand around and watch that thing run experiments. Thanks for the info, Peter >Hello Peter, > >> Is Scientific Linux still active? >Scientific Linux 6 and 7 will be supported until they are EOL, but there will be no SL8. > >Here is the official announcement from last April: > >https://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1904=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS=817 > >Bonnie King
Re: puppet
You may add Quattor to the list of not so fashionable but very powerful configuration tools! Check http://quattor.org. Cheers, Michel --On jeudi 21 février 2013 23:13 +0100 Natxo Asenjo natxo.ase...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Graham Allan al...@physics.umn.edu wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 02:27:07PM -0500, Jamie Duncan wrote: pro - powerful and well-supported con - you have to learn a new syntax alternative - bcfg2 Also cfengine, though that seems to be getting less fashionable... We still use it, no compelling reasons to change so far! we take our decisions based on functionality, not fashion. Cfengine is just fine. Good performance, little dependencies, good security record (not unimportant for your infrastructure management tool and oh what a start of the year for ruby it was), and it has in place editing instead of requiring you to use yet another tool (augeas). But puppet/chef are good products too, just not good enough to justify a downgrade from the better one ;-) -- natxo * * Michel Jouvin Email : jou...@lal.in2p3.fr * * LAL / CNRSTel : +33 1 64468932* * B.P. 34 Fax : +33 1 69079404* * 91898 Orsay Cedex * * France* *
