gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.server

Re: Production?

Dmitry Butskoy — 2012-02-13T11:18:49

BTW, whether does somebody something, which would be named "Fedora 14 
Legacy"?

I hear Linus still sits on F14 (due to impression by some innovations in 
F15+). Maybe some other people too? It would be a good base for LTS 
system (until the innovations, mentioned above, become production-wide 
stable). I hope some people already gone would come back then...

Just thoughts.


Regards,
Dmitry Butskoy
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DmitryButskoy
_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Production?

Fabio M. Di Nitto — 2012-02-13T08:20:12

(I speak for myself and my personal servers, despite my < at >redhat.com
email address ;))

No, I don´t run Fedora. The lifetime of a major release is too short
compared to the time I am willing to invest in maintenance and upgrades.

I use a combination of Centos and Debian stable releases (tho I am
considering to go 100% Centos).

A Fedora LTS solution (already suggested in this thread) is something i
would evaluate.

Fabio

_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Production?

Michael R. Davis — 2012-02-10T23:05:41

 
We use Fedora and have used it for years in Production and test environments.  But, we analyzed Fedora 16 and have decided NOT to use Fedora 16!  It's been a good run though.  We'll stick with an RPM-based system but we have not decided which one yet (maybe we'll just skip FC16).  
 
Mike_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Production?

Jimmy Dorff — 2012-02-10T21:26:28

Yes, they are all on the Common F16 bugs. The GPT boot problem was 
difficult because we had used KVM VMs for testing (where it worked) and 
the first hardware install just happened to be on a system that 
supported GPT. Then the role out started to more systems and basically 
none of them supported GPT boot.

Also, for servers the inability to have /boot on software RAID and the 
"Cannot install over an existing RAID configuration" are difficult.

-Jimmy


_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Production?

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson — 2012-02-10T21:10:12

What install bugs and have you reported them?

Administrators might want to have a look at this 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PackagePresets ( think 
myserver.preset )

JBG



_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Production?

Jimmy Dorff — 2012-02-10T20:35:39

We did until 15. Systemd was too much change for us at that time. I'm 
testing with 16 now, but there are many installs bugs in F16 that is 
making automated deployment difficult.

-Jimmy
_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Production?

Jóhann B. Guðmundsson — 2012-02-10T19:30:31

I've run it on production servers with no problems et all ( minimal 
install + required service(s) ) through 13months then done fresh minimal 
installs and migrated the services over too that. ( Never upgraded those 
servers )

Personally I think Fedora is in a unique position to act as the free 
alternative LTS to RHEL that users demand for since RHEL is downstream 
to us.

We would not for example be bit by any future RHEL business decision 
like Centos and other RHEL clones were.

People just need to sit down,discuss and come up with a proposal on how 
Fedora LTS should be and present that proposal to the community for 
feedback and maybe contact the "clones" to see if they would not rather 
participate in a such effort then chasing RHEL...

JBG


_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Production?

Jon Ciesla — 2012-02-10T19:09:15

I recently shut down, but I ran a small business that way for a few years.

-J

Production?

Scott Doty — 2012-02-10T19:07:36

I know the sense of many folks using Fedora is that it isn't appropriate
for production systems -- but despite this, I've used it in production
servers since FC1, and I'm not displeased with the results.

Does anyone else use Fedora on production servers?

 -Scott

_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: RPMs to make server life easier

Miroslav Lichvar — 2011-11-14T09:10:31

If you need to keep the main config static you can use
"include /etc/chrony.servers" and keep the local modifications there.

You can also have a NM dispatcher script in
/etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d (or a dhclient script in
/etc/dhcp/dhclient.d) which will add the local servers via chronyc.

The default configuration adds the NTP servers advertised in DHCP
lease automatically.

Re: RPMs to make server life easier

Jon Ciesla — 2011-11-13T21:06:48


This sort of customization you'll need to do on your end, with a config
RPM, cfengine, puppet, etc.


See above.


If you're referring to having these enabled by default, set that in your
kickstart with chkconfig.  If not, please clarify.


Not Free/OSS software, can't be in Fedora.  If you're already running your
own internal-only repo, you can put this there and include in your
kickstart.

-J

RPMs to make server life easier

Michael R. Davis — 2011-11-13T02:54:53

Fedora Server Folks,
I'm not sure this is the correct forum for this but I think my goals match the Fedora Server SIG goals fairly well.  I've been a member of the list server for a while now but it's not very busy.  Anyway let's get down to business.


My goal is 100% RPM install for applications.  My company is mostly there but there are a few issues that are caused by the distribution that's why I'm here.

Internal yum repo.  We use an internal yum repo so that all of our server don't have to go out to the internet BUT the fedora-release RPM is causing issues.
    1) /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora*.repo files cannot be removed or better yet never installed.
    2) /etc/yum.repos.d is provided by fedora-release instead of filesystem or yum itself.

chrony - It looks like I'm going to like chrony better than ntp BUT.
    1) I'd like a way to specify our internal servers in a /etc/chrony.d/ like configurations instead of editing /etc/chrony.conf

httpd-on, couchdb-on, etc...
    1) doesn't every bod

Re: Puppet more recent version

Gilles Dubreuil — 2011-09-15T00:54:04

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Stahnke" <mastahnke< at >gmail.com>
To: server< at >lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2011 10:15:38 AM
Subject: Re: Puppet more recent version

On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Gilles Dubreuil <gilles< at >redhat.com> wrote:
Puppet Labs releases a version of Puppet about  once a month.  That's
kind of fast moving for EPEL (since you have to wait at least 2 weeks
in epel-testing).  Sometimes Puppet breaks compatibility between
versions also. We try not to do this, but sometimes it happens.  We're
really trying not to do that though.

Packages are up to EPEL/RH standards.  It's more an issue of if you
had manifests/modules that worked with 0.25, then 2.6 in 2.7 they may
not quite work.
Not sure about this question.  We support EL 6 today.

I can't speak too much about Satellite, as I'm not much of a community
member there any more.

What's the time-frame targeting Puppet 2.6/2.7 being part of EPEL 5/6?

Well, RHN Satellite road map is to make use of Puppet. Bu

Re: Puppet more recent version

Michael Stahnke — 2011-09-15T00:15:38

Puppet Labs releases a version of Puppet about  once a month.  That's
kind of fast moving for EPEL (since you have to wait at least 2 weeks
in epel-testing).  Sometimes Puppet breaks compatibility between
versions also. We try not to do this, but sometimes it happens.  We're
really trying not to do that though.

Packages are up to EPEL/RH standards.  It's more an issue of if you
had manifests/modules that worked with 0.25, then 2.6 in 2.7 they may
not quite work.
Not sure about this question.  We support EL 6 today.

I can't speak too much about Satellite, as I'm not much of a community
member there any more.

Re: Puppet more recent version

Gilles Dubreuil — 2011-09-14T23:34:15

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Stahnke" <mastahnke-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>
To: server-TuqUDEhatI4ANWPb/1PvSmm0pvjS0E/A< at >public.gmane.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 5:41:02 PM
Subject: Re: Puppet more recent version

Not to derail the thread too far, but upstream is now offering Puppet
in RPM format at yum.puppetlabs.com/el or /fedora.

That might help if you'd like some newer items.

I'm also working with tmz on moving forward with the newer versions of
Puppet in Fedora/EPEL.  Fedora shouldn't be a big problem.  EPEL is a
bit more tricky as we have some behavior changes between 0.25, 2.6 and
2.7 .

(Disclaimer: I work at puppet labs)

stahnma
_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server-TuqUDEhatI4ANWPb/1PvSmm0pvjS0E/A< at >public.gmane.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Thanks Mike - That's effectively a big leap forward.

Although it's more likely a question to post on EPEL list:
Are the yum.puppetlabs.com/el packages n

Re: Puppet more recent version

Michael Stahnke — 2011-09-13T07:41:02

Not to derail the thread too far, but upstream is now offering Puppet
in RPM format at yum.puppetlabs.com/el or /fedora.

That might help if you'd like some newer items.

I'm also working with tmz on moving forward with the newer versions of
Puppet in Fedora/EPEL.  Fedora shouldn't be a big problem.  EPEL is a
bit more tricky as we have some behavior changes between 0.25, 2.6 and
2.7 .

(Disclaimer: I work at puppet labs)


stahnma

Re: Puppet more recent version

Gilles Dubreuil — 2011-09-13T00:25:48

Great, thanks for the news.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Athmane Madjoudj" <athmane-rxtnV0ftBwyoClj4AeEUq9i2O/JbrIOy< at >public.gmane.org>
To: server-TuqUDEhatI4ANWPb/1PvSmm0pvjS0E/A< at >public.gmane.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 10:15:43 AM
Subject: Re: Puppet more recent version

On 09/13/2011 01:07 AM, Gilles Dubreuil wrote:

puppet-2.6.6-1 is still in -testing:

F15: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-3581
EPEL6: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-2861

- Athmane
_______________________________________________
server mailing list
server-TuqUDEhatI4ANWPb/1PvSmm0pvjS0E/A< at >public.gmane.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

Re: Puppet more recent version

Athmane Madjoudj — 2011-09-13T00:15:43

puppet-2.6.6-1 is still in -testing:

F15: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-3581
EPEL6: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-2861

- Athmane

Puppet more recent version

Gilles Dubreuil — 2011-09-13T00:07:54

Hello,

What's the roadmap for Puppet more recent version to be part of Fedora?

Current puppet version is 0.25.5 which is 1,5 year old.
Same thing for EPEL.
Puppet version jumped to 2.6 after 0.25.5 and is now 2.7. 
Whatever the latter change meant for the distrib in terms of dependencies, I haven't found anything relevant in discussion groups/bugzilla.

Regards

Package list

Joerg Stephan — 2010-02-02T14:52:33

Hi all,

the page

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Server/ServersOverview_alpha

is now created via an script, which is cureently run by hand and copy
and paste to the wiki. I hope i can use the python mediawiki api to
build an script which build the page and subpages on an cron job once a
week.

If ypu wanne help, please visit the page below

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Server/ServersOverview_alpha/pending

and fillin as much as you can :-)

Best wishes

Joerg

Server Overview Page (the update)

2009-12-03T12:02:28

_______________________________________________
fedora-server-list mailing list
fedora-server-list-TuqUDEhatI4ANWPb/1PvSmm0pvjS0E/A< at >public.gmane.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fedora-server-list