FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-11-2010, 02:30 PM
Robert Moskowitz
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

On 11/11/2010 09:23 AM, Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
> 2010/11/11 Steve Thompson<smt@vgersoft.com>:
>
>
>> Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation
>> would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that
>> has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than
>> doing a clean install.
>>
> That's the point.
>
> The cost to upgrade is probably higher than a clean installation.
>
> It has changed so much between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
>
> I recommend everyone a clean installation.

I think the only 'clean' upgrade I had was Centos 5.2 -> 5.3 and that
happened by accident!

I have always taken the path to rsync all valuable stuff over to another
box, do a clean install, then move stuff back. I have a set of
instructions on 'customizing' for each of my systems to follow.

I just added a 1.5Tb USB drive on one system that I am now using for the
rsync destination. I figure that when I need to update the system it is
normally on, I can move it to another system...


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 02:36 PM
Sergey Podushkin
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> Also which Fedora version was the basis for this?
Version of anaconda is tightly linked to Fedora version, so it's based
on Fedora 13, because it use anaconda-13.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 03:17 PM
"Scot P. Floess"
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

Is it an x86_64 install? I had a problem with Xen last year under 5.x
whereby I had to increase the VM's memory footprint to 512 MB


On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:


Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:



On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:

Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:


On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:


On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:




On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:



On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:




What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and
cloud computing?




http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/



I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?



bind-9.7.0-5.P2

To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/


And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to
install this on a 256Mb system for example?


http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/


Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string
into google to get this page!

Well that has the information I was looking for except....

It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I
installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:

# free
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668
-/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880
Swap: 1052248 151876 900372

So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb
system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I
can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb
memory for these old boxes.



I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just
after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install
....'

/Götz



--
Scot P. Floess


RHCT (Certificate Number 605010084735240)

Chief Architect FlossWare http://sourceforge.net/projects/flossware
http://flossware.sourceforge.net
https://github.com/organizations/FlossWare

Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate
Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Chief Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros_____________________________________________ __
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 03:21 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

On 11/11/2010 9:30 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>>> Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation
>>> would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that
>>> has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than
>>> doing a clean install.
>>>
>> That's the point.
>>
>> The cost to upgrade is probably higher than a clean installation.
>>
>> It has changed so much between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
>>
>> I recommend everyone a clean installation.
>
> I think the only 'clean' upgrade I had was Centos 5.2 -> 5.3 and that
> happened by accident!

Errr, you should be able to 'yum update' any 5.x to any other with few
surprises. Did you mean 4.2 as the starting point there?

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 03:35 PM
Nicolas Kovacs
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

Le jeudi 11 novembre 2010 15:53:49, Robert Moskowitz a écrit :
> It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I
> installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb

CentOS 5 has been running fine here on an old PIII-700 with 128 MB RAM. DNS,
DHCP, Apache, MySQL and NTP for home use. Only thing you have to be careful of
is using the text mode installer and activate a swap partition during install.
Of course, everything else is trimmed down to the bare minimum.

Cheers,

Niki
--
http://www.kikinovak.net
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 03:46 PM
"Scot P. Floess"
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

Yeah - try to bump up the memory to 512 MB... As I recall, that fixed my
issues as well...


On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:


Am 11.11.10 17:17, schrieb Scot P. Floess:


Is it an x86_64 install? I had a problem with Xen last year under 5.x
whereby I had to increase the VM's memory footprint to 512 MB

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:


Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:



On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:

Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:


On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:


On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:




On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:



On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:




What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and
cloud computing?




http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/



I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?



bind-9.7.0-5.P2

To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at

ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/


And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be
able to
install this on a 256Mb system for example?


http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/


Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string
into google to get this page!

Well that has the information I was looking for except....

It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I
installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:

# free
total used free shared buffers
cached
Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952
97668
-/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880
Swap: 1052248 151876 900372

So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb
system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I
can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb
memory for these old boxes.



I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just
after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install
....'

/Götz



Yes it is an x86_64 I tried.

/götz





--
Scot P. Floess


RHCT (Certificate Number 605010084735240)

Chief Architect FlossWare http://sourceforge.net/projects/flossware
http://flossware.sourceforge.net
https://github.com/organizations/FlossWare

Chief Architect JPlate http://sourceforge.net/projects/jplate
Chief Architect JavaPIM http://sourceforge.net/projects/javapim
Chief Architect Keros http://sourceforge.net/projects/keros_____________________________________________ __
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 03:48 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

On 11/11/2010 04:46 PM, Scot P. Floess wrote:
>
> Yeah - try to bump up the memory to 512 MB... As I recall, that fixed my
> issues as well...
>

What are the chances that you might consider not top posting, and
trimming your replies so as to not carry the whole thread with it ?

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 03:55 PM
Robert Moskowitz
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

On 11/11/2010 10:10 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
> Am 11.11.10 15:53, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
>
>>
>> On 11/11/2010 01:06 AM, Götz Reinicke - IT-Koordinator wrote:
>>
>>> Am 10.11.10 23:54, schrieb Robert Moskowitz:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 11/10/2010 04:33 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/10/2010 02:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 02:40:52PM -0600, Matt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What does 6 bring with it? Anything new in virtualization and
>>>>>>>> cloud computing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.redhat.com/rhel/server/details/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see here what version of BIND is included. Anyone know?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> bind-9.7.0-5.P2
>>>>>
>>>>> To determine other versions the src.rpm's are located at
>>>>>
>>>>> ftp://ftp.redhat.com/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And what are the minimum system requirements? Will we still be able to
>>>> install this on a 256Mb system for example?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/
>>>
>> Great! Now I know what to look for I can put the right search string
>> into google to get this page!
>>
>> Well that has the information I was looking for except....
>>
>> It says there that RHEL 5's minimum memory is 512Mb. Last week I
>> installed Centos 5.5 on a test system with 256Mb with a 1Gb of cache:
>>
>> # free
>> total used free shared buffers cached
>> Mem: 254124 235864 18260 0 5952 97668
>> -/+ buffers/cache: 132244 121880
>> Swap: 1052248 151876 900372
>>
>> So I hope that Centos 6 will continue to be installable on a 256Mb
>> system. It does not pay to replace the memory on these test systems. I
>> can pick up 1Gb used SFF systems for about the same price as 512Mb
>> memory for these old boxes.
>>
>>
> I just tried to install RH EL 6 on a virtual mashine with 256 MB. Just
> after the installer boots it says 'You do not have enough RAM to install
> ....'

Given a comment that RHEL 6 is based on FC13, I am going to try
installing FC13 on one of my 256 test systems, but I suspect it will be
time to send those systems off to the recyclers.... Maybe someone will
take them and put DSL or some such on them.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 03:56 PM
Robert Moskowitz
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

On 11/11/2010 10:21 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 11/11/2010 9:30 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
>>
>>>> Having done several upgrades from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, my recommendation
>>>> would be to not even try it. There is all kinds of ugliness left over that
>>>> has to be cleaned up; I did it in the end, but it took a lot longer than
>>>> doing a clean install.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's the point.
>>>
>>> The cost to upgrade is probably higher than a clean installation.
>>>
>>> It has changed so much between RHEL5 and RHEL6.
>>>
>>> I recommend everyone a clean installation.
>>>
>> I think the only 'clean' upgrade I had was Centos 5.2 -> 5.3 and that
>> happened by accident!
>>
> Errr, you should be able to 'yum update' any 5.x to any other with few
> surprises. Did you mean 4.2 as the starting point there?

That was so many upgrades back that you might be right!


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-11-2010, 04:05 PM
R P Herrold
 
Default RHEL 6 Officially Released

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010, Scott Robbins wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 02:57:58PM +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> John R. Dennison wrote:

>>> I think it's a fair bet to say it will be at least 4-6 weeks
>>> out.

>> When it comes, will I be able to upgrade by "sudo yum update"?

Probably a casual one off user will not want to follow this
path as it is not deterministic as to the method that works
AND migrates all prior applications 'in situ'

There are something north of 80 simultaneous packages for very
minimal install, in the resulting transaction set from a
CentOS 5 updated to current, to a locally rebuilt 6 testing
candidate [from the second beta]. NOT stripping out unused
leaf nodes increases the liklihood of a unsolveable dependency
(more on this in a moment) even more

That is, I have attempted working forward from:
0. build a local binary archive and run a createrepo
1. a clean starting point backup
2. stripping the box down to minimal leaf nodes
3. plenty of local drive to store the transaction set
packages in
4. let yum solve the transaction set [rpm5 can do
this as well, but is out of scope here]
5. download all of them
6. create a MANIFEST with ls
7. take another backup to work forward from on later
trials

8. try a: rpm -F `cat MANIFEST`

This fails -- perhaps due to a sequencing issue; needed
scripts are dying and SElinux is in play, perhaps a
non-present dependency. ... does not matter

9. fall back to the step 7 backup
10. try a: rpm -U `cat MANIFEST`

This fails as well, but differently

Disabling SElinux did not help; in trying a third time with
SElinux disabled, this fails with scripts issues


Also one loses the conversion to ext4

I can take a hint

I concluded that a media based upgrade (which is essentially
--nodeps) and in a environment where SElinux can work, and
scripts frummage may not matter [... WOULD NOT matter if
script actions were idempotent, which they clearly are not]
was the way to go, and not via: yum

I have other fish to fry until CentOS specific media to QA
becomes available A hobby user doing this for recreation,
or a HUGE (hundreds of chassis or instances) may be able to
amortize the cost of finding a solution, but to me, it is not
yet an interesting problem to spend time in advance of QA'ing
'real' CentOS content

-- Russ herrold
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:57 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org