On Monday 30 January 2006 10:19, Ian Blenke wrote:
> michael hast wrote:
> > Is it me, or does a distrobution install and do apps configure
> > slightly differently on each machine? Is that why it is so hard to
> > get step-by-step how-to's on so much Linux stuff? It seems like as
> > hard as I try, I simply cannot come up with the same exact results
> > from machine to machine without playing with stuff. Am I on to
> > something here?
>
> Yes.
>
> Every Linux distribution has one thing in common: they use a Linux kernel.
> Every distribution uses a _different_ kernel source tree, each
Many and all is of course not the same thing. Every distribution does not keep
their own kernel source tree, but many do. It depends on what it is that
distribution tries to do differently.
For example, look on CentOS, it's RH almost the whole way. Exactly the same
kernel. With only name and artwork changes on a few places. But then that's
exactly what they try to be, a free enterprise version of RH.
> Each Linux distribution has its own packaging system, be it RPM, DEB,
> ebuild, tarball (tgz), etc.
There are a few of these that differ, but most are based on those few package
managers.
> It's the only way to ensure the same behavior across a _large_ Linux
> server cluster.
Not sure if I get you right, but all you need to do is to build them from the
same version of the same distribution. The same CD's. You are going to end up
with the exact same kernel on every single computer. Even if across millions
of servers. The only thing that will differ is the hardware you have.
Then you will have the kernel behavior that differs between Intel/AMD,
32bit/64bit. But if you are building a real cluster it will be the exact same
hardware, and if it's only similar hardware like from Intel and AMD, keeping
your own kernel will not solve the problem inherent in how the CPU's differ.
Of course if you mean using different versions of or even distributions across
your servers, that's plain silly. Just adding trouble, or wasted efforts to
maintain.
What I think is the far bigger issue is maintenance of the code. Bug and
security fixes. Who is behind maintaining that for your distro. With, again,
someone like CentOS it's RH and their very competent crew. But that can be a
much bigger hassle.
Servers should only have a limited amount of s/w installed and running on
them. This is of course still relative. There is a much bigger number of
utilities running these days. Checking quality, connections, etc. But that is
still a much lower amount than a desktop.
I agree that there's a lot of differences that occurs across distros. The way
they integrate various packages. But I'd argue that the kernel is probably
the least of your problems. How a package has been integrated is in my view
the problem we see. The version that distro used and configured it to work
for them. There's a massive amount of variables. (Maybe that's what you
meant?)
--Steve Szmidt
"For evil to triumph all that is needed is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 17:23:43 EDT