Forum OpenACS Q&A: Which OS for new OpenACS.org
"The next step is installing an OS; which flavor is up to the OCT. For production machines we run Red Hat Enterprise 3 which costs $400 a year. We could also go with Fedora; either Fedora Core 2 now, or wait a week or two and see if Fedora Core 3 is released from beta. Or we could go with something else like Debian, Suse, or FreeBSD; it's up to you folks. I recommend a Red Hat distro only because it's well supported and tested on Dell server hardware. Here's a summary of the machine and its current configuration: Dell PowerEdge 2550 1 1-GHz PIII CPU 1.5-GB RAM 4 36-GB SCSI drives in hardware RAID 5"The OpenACS.org hosts in the past have run Red Hat.
I'm definitely against the RHLE3 solution due to the cost associated with it.
Kudos to Mike for all his work!
That being said, if we're going all out free software, Debian or one of it's children would be neato.
(and might i point out that Ubuntu is maintained with GNU arch ;))
Having said that, the distribution should be picked by who is going to be managing the box, whatever they feel is best. So I'd say the choice should be up to Mike.
And thanks again for the great work, Mike.
Having said that, I'm not running AOLserver on that box, so I don't know that portion of the equation.
What's this about RH donating copyrights?
The same folks also do cAos, which is a different rpm based distribution, not based on Red Hat. Personally, I may experiment with cAos at some point because the Warewulf cluster folks recommend it, but every time I look again at all these random different rpm-based distributions, I become annoyed and am again inclined to stick exclusively with Debian.
One little anecdote I say recently: Someone mention that their group had installed Debian on their Beowulf cluster - more than 7 years ago. Despite two major hardware upgrades, no re-installs at all, just lots of "apt-get upgrade".
I don't know of any other distribution that has actually maintained a solid upgrade path for 7+ years. Red Hat never even came close - even back in the Red Hat 6.x days c. 2000 or 2001, long before they orphaned all their non-Enterprise users, upgrading from one point release to another often didn't work anyway.
It is nice though to see many of the rpm-based distributions finally adopting apt-get or yum, and attempting to give Debian some competition.
I would vote for Debian Sarge since it is very stable now, easy to maintain, and I simply like the community nature of the distro. Sarge can take the 2.6 kernel without difficulty (the upgrade for me from 2.4 to 2.6 was simply: apt get kernel-image...), although Debain Stable with backports would make sense too. 2.6 has been noticeably faster on my servers than 2.4 (although they do things other than just serve openacs sites, so i don't know if the differences are found in the other tasks).
The biggest problem with Sarge is that security updates are not supported for it.I seem to recall seeing recently (on debian-devel perhaps? I can't find a reference) that they're already putting together the infrastructure for security to support sarge before it gets shifted from testing to stable...
The bad news is that we still do not have an ETA for the testing-security autobuilders to be functional. This continues to be the major blocker for proceeding with the freeze; we would /like/ to have security support in place for sarge before encouraging widespread upgrade woody->sarge upgrade testing, but we /need/ to have it in place before releasing, so it would be unwise to try to freeze the rest of the archive without any confirmed schedule for the last stages of the release.hmmm... and that message is over a month old... perhaps not so recent after all...