[gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Brett Simpson]

This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews article.  http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080

"Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. It makes Gentoo Linux the ideal distribution for hobbyists who get lots of cool toys before everyone else, but makes Gentoo Linux a questionable choice for production server environments,"

"We're going to take pieces of the current "bleeding-edge" Gentoo Linux meta-distribution, refined them and use them as the basis for a robust, well-maintained version of Gentoo Linux -- geared exclusively for servers. For this project, we will reduce the number of ebuilds in our server branch from 1800 to around 400, at least initially. Our stable CVS tree will be completely separate from our current bleeding-edge version -- a "code firewall", if you will. Commit access will be limited to an elite team of Gentoo Linux developers. We will lock down upgrades so that "emerge --update world" will only fix known bugs and security fixes. Each release of this new server meta-distribution will have an official one-year lifespan, during which it will be painstakingly maintained by us. In-place upgrades to new releases will be fully-tested and very smooth. We will have some cross-pollination with our current tree, but anything that goes into the server distro will be carefully audited before being added. We are still developing the goals for our new server project, but based on feedback from the rest of our development team (who seem to be in near unanimous agreement) it looks like the project will progress very closely if not identically to how it is described above."


Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the current 1.4 release in a production server environment?

Thanks,
Brett


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Lisa Seelye]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 948 bytes --]

On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:38, Brett Simpson wrote:
> Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the current 1.4 release in a production server environment?

Gentoo is flexible enough to be placed in just about any type of
environment.  As we move closer and closer to Portage-ng the
administrator of a production server will only gain more control over
the Gentoo machines he or she maintains.

You as the administrator have nearly 6000 packages for the administrator
to pick from (with most packages that you might want in a various type
of server), and if the package isn't present, the .ebuild syntax is
incredibly easy to learn.

With the control over the dependency tree and portage tree that Gentoo
affords its users there is no good reason to not consider Gentoo for any
type of machine - production or otherwise.


-- 
Regards,
-Lisa
<Vix ulla tam iniqua pax, quin bello vel aequissimo sit potior>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Brett Simpson]

On Friday 05 December 2003 02:51 pm, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:38, Brett Simpson wrote:
> > Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the
> > current 1.4 release in a production server environment?
>
> Gentoo is flexible enough to be placed in just about any type of
> environment.  As we move closer and closer to Portage-ng the
> administrator of a production server will only gain more control over
> the Gentoo machines he or she maintains.
>
> With the control over the dependency tree and portage tree that Gentoo
> affords its users there is no good reason to not consider Gentoo for any
> type of machine - production or otherwise.

So then the statement "makes Gentoo Linux a questionable choice for production 
server environments" no longer applies?

Also has a company/business been formed around Gentoo?

We are using Gentoo in a production server environment but recently management 
has been asking questions mostly because Gartner only recommends SuSE or 
Redhat Enterprise Linux.

Thanks,
Brett


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Brett Simpson]

On Friday 05 December 2003 03:10 pm, Brett Simpson wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2003 02:51 pm, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> > On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:38, Brett Simpson wrote:
> > > Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the
> > > current 1.4 release in a production server environment?
> >
> > Gentoo is flexible enough to be placed in just about any type of
> > environment.  As we move closer and closer to Portage-ng the
> > administrator of a production server will only gain more control over
> > the Gentoo machines he or she maintains.
> >
> > With the control over the dependency tree and portage tree that Gentoo
> > affords its users there is no good reason to not consider Gentoo for any
> > type of machine - production or otherwise.

More management questions:

So would I be correct in saying that the "bleeding edge" portion in Gentoo 1.0 
is now equivalent to the unstable packages in Gentoo 1.4? 

And that someone who installs Gentoo by default won't get an unstable/untested 
bleeding edge package unless they configure the system to install unstable 
packages?

Thanks,
Brett


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Jon Portnoy]

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 03:10:36PM -0500, Brett Simpson wrote:
> 
> We are using Gentoo in a production server environment but recently management 
> has been asking questions mostly because Gartner only recommends SuSE or 
> Redhat Enterprise Linux.
> 

Yeah, the same analyst group who has in the past claimed Windows has a 
lower TCO. I'd sure want to listen to them... 8)

-- 
Jon Portnoy
avenj/irc.freenode.net

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Don Seiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 645 bytes --]

I've mentioned this before but Oracle also only officially supports SUSE
and RHAS.  Mainly because of the less "variable" (I suppose one could
say "fluid") nature of those distros.  I can definitely see that point
of view.

So, regardless of Gartner's past FUD, this isn't a totally wacky notion.

Don.

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 03:45:13PM -0500, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Yeah, the same analyst group who has in the past claimed Windows has a 
> lower TCO. I'd sure want to listen to them... 8)

-- 
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy,
but that could change."

George W. Bush
May 22, 1998

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Mike Williams]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Friday 05 December 2003 21:33, Don Seiler wrote:
> I've mentioned this before but Oracle also only officially supports SUSE
> and RHAS.  Mainly because of the less "variable" (I suppose one could
> say "fluid") nature of those distros.  I can definitely see that point
> of view.

In my *very* limited experience of Oracle it's a whole hell of a lot easier to 
install it on Gentoo than RHAS. It just worked when I did it, with Redhat you 
had to do all sorts of silly little things.

- -- 
Mike Williams
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/0QflInuLMrk7bIwRArm1AJ9ZgeHjTS5MsBibdDaEa6w9VNHd+QCgqddL
R/8tpS8BKXrC+QPpVR50tiI=
=jKgk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Don Seiler]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 644 bytes --]

I don't disagree and have done it on both.

I'm just saying what Oracle will support.  If you say you are on Gentoo
they will tell you to replicate the problem on Suse or RHAS and call
back when you do.

Don.

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 10:34:13PM +0000, Mike Williams wrote:
> In my *very* limited experience of Oracle it's a whole hell of a lot easier to 
> install it on Gentoo than RHAS. It just worked when I did it, with Redhat you 
> had to do all sorts of silly little things.

-- 
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream."

George W. Bush
October 18, 2000
During visit to La Crosse, Wisconsin.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Corey Shields]

Brett Simpson wrote:
> So then the statement "makes Gentoo Linux a questionable choice for production 
> server environments" no longer applies?

Indiana University has been deploying Gentoo Linux heavily in production 
environments.

> We are using Gentoo in a production server environment but recently management 
> has been asking questions mostly because Gartner only recommends SuSE or 
> Redhat Enterprise Linux.

This is because RedHat/SuSE give a corporation where blame can be placed 
when something goes wrong.  This was to solve the original argument of 
"There's nobody to call when it breaks.." that has kept a lot of 
companies from switching to Linux.   However I think the recent pricing 
model and company changes will make people re-think a lot of their 
support needs.

-C

-- 
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Corey Shields]

Don Seiler wrote:
> I've mentioned this before but Oracle also only officially supports SUSE
> and RHAS.  Mainly because of the less "variable" (I suppose one could
> say "fluid") nature of those distros.  I can definitely see that point
> of view.
> 
> So, regardless of Gartner's past FUD, this isn't a totally wacky notion.

But if you are going to spend the money required for Oracle, then you 
should spend the money it takes to run a distribution that guarantees 
support for Oracle.

If price is an issue, there are OSS alternatives..

Cheers!

-- 
Corey Shields - Gentoo Linux Infrastructure Team
http://www.gentoo.org/~cshields


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Sven Vermeulen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1303 bytes --]

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 02:38:15PM -0500, Brett Simpson wrote:
> This quote was made by Daniel Robbins in an OSNews article.
> http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=1080
> 
> "Gentoo Linux is currently a "bleeding-edge" type distro. It makes Gentoo
> Linux the ideal distribution for hobbyists who get lots of cool toys before
> everyone else, but makes Gentoo Linux a questionable choice for production
> server environments,"
[..]
> Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the
> current 1.4 release in a production server environment?

Gentoo Portage is already in use for production environments. It is not
Gentoo by itself, but nevertheless an important item.

http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/03/11/06/0254253.shtml

The reason I mention this here is because the use of Gentoo in production
server environments is restricted to the ability of the system administrator
to clearly define what he needs and doesn't need for his servers.

Portage is flexible enough to fit in almost every situation, and therefor
Gentoo is flexible enough too.

Wkr,
	Sven Vermeulen

-- 
 ^__^   And Larry saw that it was Good.
 (oo)                                      Sven Vermeulen
 (__)   http://www.gentoo.org              Gentoo Documentation Project

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --]

On Friday 05 December 2003 20:51, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 14:38, Brett Simpson wrote:
> > Since this was based off of Gentoo 1.0 how relevant is this for the
> > current 1.4 release in a production server environment?
>
> Gentoo is flexible enough to be placed in just about any type of
> environment.  As we move closer and closer to Portage-ng the
> administrator of a production server will only gain more control over
> the Gentoo machines he or she maintains.

In general when you have to maintain such a system you want to keep it as it 
is. To avoid it breaking, or users being annoyed with changed interfaces. 
This means that you install once, and after that want to change as little as 
possible. With the current portage this is not easy because ebuilds disapear 
after they have been succeeded by newer ones. "Enterprise Gentoo" basically 
is a specially audited tarbal of ebuilds which have been taken from the main 
tree, and for which there is a team that says. We will provide security 
backports for this and fixes for those really annoying bugs, but mainly will 
allow you to run the same system for a year without anything changeing away 
from under your feet.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Lisa Seelye]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 763 bytes --]

On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 05:45, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> In general when you have to maintain such a system you want to keep it as it 
> is. To avoid it breaking, or users being annoyed with changed interfaces. 
> This means that you install once, and after that want to change as little as 
> possible. With the current portage this is not easy because ebuilds disapear 
> after they have been succeeded by newer ones.

Valid enough concern.  However if I was building a series of Gentoo
servers that were to be as stable as could be I would go through the
portage tree and prune non-server stuff (such as x11-*) and then create
my own Portage tree to sync against.

-- 
Regards,
-Lisa
<Vix ulla tam iniqua pax, quin bello vel aequissimo sit potior>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1083 bytes --]

On Sunday 07 December 2003 19:36, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 05:45, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > In general when you have to maintain such a system you want to keep it as
> > it is. To avoid it breaking, or users being annoyed with changed
> > interfaces. This means that you install once, and after that want to
> > change as little as possible. With the current portage this is not easy
> > because ebuilds disapear after they have been succeeded by newer ones.
>
> Valid enough concern.  However if I was building a series of Gentoo
> servers that were to be as stable as could be I would go through the
> portage tree and prune non-server stuff (such as x11-*) and then create
> my own Portage tree to sync against.

That is still more work than if it is provided. It also doesn't offer 
backported securtity fixes. But that is basically what such a release would 
provide, however including the promiss that we will maintain it for a year.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Jeff Smelser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 07 December 2003 12:36 pm, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> Valid enough concern.  However if I was building a series of Gentoo
> servers that were to be as stable as could be I would go through the
> portage tree and prune non-server stuff (such as x11-*) and then create
> my own Portage tree to sync against.

Yes, but can you expect every company to do this? Most don't know gentoo's in
and outs like a dev's probably do. They just want something thats easy as
possible to install, reliable and whatever other "buzz word" you want to
throw in there..
- --
   If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
                ...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/04ppld4MRA3gEwYRAp4mAKCdmoHHh/t5s8Io/Nkk9JlqfUTj2ACgjxIw
5uDZkz5WMUBUPORPS67+ATw=
=H85Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[david]

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 08:11:02PM +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Content-Description: signed data
> On Sunday 07 December 2003 19:36, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 05:45, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > In general when you have to maintain such a system you want to keep it as
> > > it is. To avoid it breaking, or users being annoyed with changed
> > > interfaces. This means that you install once, and after that want to
> > > change as little as possible. With the current portage this is not easy
> > > because ebuilds disapear after they have been succeeded by newer ones.
> >
> > Valid enough concern.  However if I was building a series of Gentoo
> > servers that were to be as stable as could be I would go through the
> > portage tree and prune non-server stuff (such as x11-*) and then create
> > my own Portage tree to sync against.
> 

I've done this internally at my company.  Eventually I plan on
deploying a product with it.  Right now it is a Pain in the Ass(tm) to
maintain and I do'nt have that kind of time currently.

> That is still more work than if it is provided. It also doesn't offer 
> backported securtity fixes. But that is basically what such a release would 
> provide, however including the promiss that we will maintain it for a year.
> 

This is exactly what needs to happen.  I just haven't seen where any
of this development is going on, so I have been unable to contribute.
Is there even a gentoo project page for Gentoo Enterprise ?

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 397 bytes --]

There is a GLEP being re-worked for this right now. Hopefully this will
soon get the ball rolling on this project. 

> This is exactly what needs to happen.  I just haven't seen where any
> of this development is going on, so I have been unable to contribute.
> Is there even a gentoo project page for Gentoo Enterprise ?

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo for production servers.

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: signed data --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1024 bytes --]

On Sunday 07 December 2003 21:15, Jeff Smelser wrote:
> On Sunday 07 December 2003 12:36 pm, Lisa Seelye wrote:
> > Valid enough concern.  However if I was building a series of Gentoo
> > servers that were to be as stable as could be I would go through the
> > portage tree and prune non-server stuff (such as x11-*) and then create
> > my own Portage tree to sync against.
>
> Yes, but can you expect every company to do this? Most don't know gentoo's
> in and outs like a dev's probably do. They just want something thats easy
> as possible to install, reliable and whatever other "buzz word" you want to
> throw in there..

It is gentoo-enterprise, not gentoo-stable. The thing is that the tree will 
not change. That does not in principle say anything about the stability of 
the packages themselves. (Although of course we will try to do some QA on 
them, and fix those that are really broken)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]