[Beowulf] SuSE 9.3

[John Brookes]

My tuppenny worth:

On the subject of Fedora, I've had no major problems with FC3, had
'some' with FC2 (but mainly on laptops, really) and waaaaaay too many
with FC1.

> Where it is worth parenthetically noting that Centos 4 "is" RHEL 4
which
"is" Fedora 4, only frozen.  Also that (IIRC) Scientific Linux is built
on top of RHEL 4 (and hence is "like" Centos plus add-ons if it doesn't
actually share de-RH-logified rpms).

You remember accurately. Scientific Linux is <current_version_of_RHEL>
built from (open) source, minus anything that _may_ cause licensing
issues.

> Stability and update stream are just great, but I personally think
RHEL may be carrying the stability thing to a fault.

It's not entirely fair to criticise RH for the relative sloth of the
release of new RHEL versions. It _is_ 'Enterprise Linux', after all, and
I'd guess the air would be thick with lawsuits if J Random MegaCorp were
left exposed due to insufficient testing on RH's part (or Oracle's, or
Fluent's etc on the certification front). In this realm, though, I agree
that it can be an issue.


John Brookes
Senior Technical Consultant
COMPUSYS PLC
DD: +44 (0)1296 505348
Mob: +44 (0)7789278947
Tel: +44 (0)1296 505100
Fax: +44 (0)1296 424165
Web: www.compusys.co.uk

This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are
solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of
Compusys or any of its affiliates. If you are not the intended
recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and
that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this
email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error
please notify Compusys Customer Services by telephone on +44(0)1296
505140


-----Original Message-----
From: beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org [mailto:beowulf-bounces at beowulf.org]
On Behalf Of Robert G. Brown
Sent: 12 July 2005 13:58
To: Gerry Creager N5JXS
Cc: johnh at streamline-computing.com; beowulf at beowulf.org
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] SuSE 9.3

Gerry Creager N5JXS writes:

> We have also become fond of CentOS (specifically, v4.0).

Where it is worth parenthetically noting that Centos 4 "is" RHEL 4 which
"is" Fedora 4, only frozen.  Also that (IIRC) Scientific Linux is built
on top of RHEL 4 (and hence is "like" Centos plus add-ons if it doesn't
actually share de-RH-logified rpms).

Regarding FC -- FC 1 sucked -- sort of a destabilized RH 9 and no (good)
support for x86-64.  FC 2 was pretty good and by the time it got turned
into Linux at Duke (FC2 plus enhancements and fixes) it was very stable and
has run on both cluster nodes and desktops for a long time, since we are
updating only every other FC release (and will have a linux at duke based
on FC 4 "soon" this summer).  FC 3 is running on the laptop I'm typing
this on (and a few other systems in my house) and seems to work very
well and contain significant enhancements of various sorts relative to
FC 3.

However, my broader experience is that with distros your mileage ALWAYS
may vary.  People tend to have a negative experience (often because of a
quirk in their particular combination of hardware) and then write a
distro off, but if one perseveres and gets a clean install it will
probably run just fine -- not that crazy given the tremendous overlap in
source and build across distros.  For example, saying that you "like"
only some of Centos, RHEL, SL, or FC but not the rest is almost
certainly due to user error or because you dislike something about the
philosophy of one or the other, not because there are deep substantive
differences in install, basic package selection, build methodology, etc.

I personally think that FC is only marginally less stable than the RHEL
clones, for example, and in anything but a brand-new FC release the
update stream almost certainly fixes those relatively few initial
problems.  This makes yum a key component of any install, but WITH yum
one has a truly impressive range of prebuilt RPMs available with the
various add-on repos.

The dark side of the RHEL clones is the slowness of their advances.
Centos 3 was running GSL in some really early version LONG after
significant new functionality and bug fixes were available in the STABLE
RELEASE version in FC.  Stability and update stream are just great, but
I personally think RHEL may be carrying the stability thing to a fault.
The kernel, also, can be a real problem if "stabilized" for too long --
two years is a LONG time in hardware space; lots of products released
and supported in more aggressive kernel update streams, lots of
improvements in the kernel itself.

   rgb

> 
> gerry
> 
> Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>> Fedora core 2 i already tried and when installed at my dual, it was
wasting
>> cpu time for nothing. The worst distribution ever. Not worth
downloading if
>> your intentions are more than 'just run linux'. If you need to run
>> applications that will eat system time, Fedora Core is the worst
choice.
>> 
>> In general Suse and Redhat are deteriorating, only their commercial
product
>> lines might be doing fine, which are what is it, $1500 a piece or so
in
>> case of Redhat? 
>> 
>> Suse 9.3 was a waste of money. It doesn't even install correct.
Either you
>> get 'kernel panic', or some file system stuff is going wrong.
>> 
>> Amazingly Suse 9.0 at the same machine worked fine (but of course
2.4.x is
>> wrong kernel for a quad opteron so i must upgrade that).
>> 
>> Anyone tried opensolaris.org actually and download their compiler at 
>> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/sun_studio_tools/
>> 
>> Or is this all a big commercial show from Sun?
>> 
>> At 05:40 PM 7/11/2005 -0400, Michael Joyner wrote:
>> 
>>>After discussing it with the physics professor, we have decided to
try 
>>>Fedora 2 + OSCAR.
>>>
>>>Wish me luck! :)
>>>
>>>John Hearns wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 11:32 -0400, Michael Joyner wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Brian R Smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>SuSE does come with a few helpful packages like mpich/lam and
queuing
>>>>>>software like OpenPBS, but in my experience, you are always better
off
>>>>>>following a more generic model: build it yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>>We were initially looking at SuSE because that is what we have 
>>>>>everywhere else. :)
>>>>
>>>>Well, use SuSE on your cluster then, if that is the distro which you
are
>>>>most used to.
>>>>Personally, I would shy away from Fedora, much though I have a
liking
>>>>for Redhat hand have used it for years.
>>>>
>>>>I agree with the advice though to build your own packages rather
than
>>>>relying on the RPMs.
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>>>>To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
>> 
>> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>> 
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>>>To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
>> 
>> http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>> 
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
>> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
> 
> -- 
> Gerry Creager -- gerry.creager at tamu.edu
> Texas Mesonet -- AATLT, Texas A&M University	
> Cell: 979.229.5301 Office: 979.458.4020 FAX: 979.847.8578
> Page: 979.228.0173
> Office: 903A Eller Bldg, TAMU, College Station, TX 77843
> _______________________________________________
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf at beowulf.org
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf