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 11-24-2010, 07:50 AM
Niki Kovacs
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

Hi,

I've been contacted by a local training center specialized in Oracle
databases, to train a group of four administrators to use Linux. They're
supposed to use Oracle Linux (more exactly "OL5"), which I understand is
some specialized version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

I'm reasonably proficient with CentOS. I've been using it exclusively on
desktops and servers since 2007 (version 4.3 if I remember correctly),
after a few years on Slackware and Debian. I've setup CentOS-based
networks in small town halls, public libraries and schools, my dedicated
webserver is running the latest CentOS, and I've published a book about
basic Linux concepts entirely based on CentOS 5.3.

On the other hand, I've never got to work on the "real thing", so to
speak. The only time I put my hands on a Red Hat Enterprise Linux server
was to retrieve the root password for a distracted client (add
init=/bin/bash to the kernel line in GRUB, mount -o remount,rw /, passwd
D). And I never came near a machine running Oracle Linux.

What differences can I expect between a server running Oracle Linux and
my average server running CentOS ? As far as I can guess, their
"unbreakable" Linux kernel will still be some package called 'kernel'
(with the according 'kernel-devel' and 'kernel-headers' packages).
Probably Yum will be used as a dependency resolver (will it?), only with
different repositories. And for the rest, I except it to work the same,
in that I can still use chkconfig, ntsysv, rpm, etc. (what about
system-config-securitylevel-tui or similar tools?)

In short, what differences/similarities can I expect? Is there some
document stating these?

Cheers from the sunny South of France,

Niki Kovacs

--
http://www.microlinux.fr

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 08:20 AM
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

> Hi,
>
> I've been contacted by a local training center specialized in Oracle
> databases, to train a group of four administrators to use Linux. They're
> supposed to use Oracle Linux (more exactly "OL5"), which I understand is
> some specialized version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.


I think they offer you a choice of kernels.
Their own kernel has performance enhancements.

It's also supposed to be cheaper in maintenance than RHEL.
But AFAIK, it's a re-engineering of RHEL in the same way CentOS is.
Just with commercial support (and geared towards running Oracle stuff).

I just looked and at the most basic level (patches only) it costs
94?/year/system.

Does anybody know how fast they implement the fixes from upstream?


Rainer
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 10:57 AM
Scott Robbins
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:50:07AM +0100, Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What differences can I expect between a server running Oracle Linux and
> my average server running CentOS ? As far as I can guess, their
> "unbreakable" Linux kernel will still be some package called 'kernel'
> (with the according 'kernel-devel' and 'kernel-headers' packages).
> Probably Yum will be used as a dependency resolver (will it?), only with
> different repositories. And for the rest, I except it to work the same,
> in that I can still use chkconfig, ntsysv, rpm, etc. (what about
> system-config-securitylevel-tui or similar tools?)

Well, it's pretty similar. I'm not sure if I messed up the installation
or not, but I had to later download reops--it has yum, chkconfig,
service and so on.

I didn't find a samba package, but as this was for one oracle developer
to transfer files, we just used winscp. (I also didn't look hard for a
samba package, at present, this is just a test.)

Disk naming seems slightly different--we went with more standard
partitions rather than LVM, and rather than /dev/sda and so on, it was
/dev---arrgh, I'm not at work, and my mind just went blank--errm, xda
and xdb? At any rate, it will be fairly obvious.

As mentioned, this is a test, and while I don't know all the
circumstances, we're not entitled to support--if you do it officially,
as opposed to what is probably a trial version, there is support, and I
assume (but note, that's an assumption, not knowledge), one could call
and ask things like, Where can I find samba?

(Samba client and samba common was available, but no smbd. Again, I did
NO googling on this, just did yum provides */smbd, got no results, and
then used WinSCP.)

There won't be any major shocks. On the other hand, in our case,
there's nothing at all tricky for my part of it--I just had to get a
basic server running for the oracle developers to use.

--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 11:05 AM
Hakan Koseoglu
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

On 24 November 2010 11:57, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Well, it's pretty similar. *I'm not sure if I messed up the installation
It's almost identical. Oracle kernel parameters & dependencies can be
automatically installed during installation albeit later on Oracle
RDBMS installation gives you warnings since it doesn't like the
default values in /etc/sysctl.conf as populated by OEL.

The rest? Almost completely identical to upstream.

> I didn't find a samba package, but as this was for one oracle developer
> to transfer files, we just used winscp. *(I also didn't look hard for a
> samba package, at present, this is just a test.)
Are you sure?

[root@fubar ~]# rpm -qf /usr/sbin/smbd
samba-3.0.33-3.7.el5

> Disk naming seems slightly different--we went with more standard
> partitions rather than LVM, and rather than /dev/sda and so on, it was
> /dev---arrgh, I'm not at work, and my mind just went blank--errm, xda
> and xdb? *At any rate, it will be fairly obvious.
Nope, all comes as sda/sdb etc. if you don't use LVM unless your
external storage is funky.

> assume (but note, that's an assumption, not knowledge), one could call
> and ask things like, Where can I find samba?
Erm, maybe one of these should contain it? (It is pretty visible
during the installation).

[root@hobbit Oracle Unbreakable Linux]# mount -o loop -t iso9660
Enterprise-R5-U5-Server-x86_64-dvd.iso /mnt/mnt1
[root@hobbit Oracle Unbreakable Linux]# cd /mnt/mnt1
[root@hobbit Oracle Unbreakable Linux]# find /mnt/mnt1 -iname samba*
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba-3.0.33-3.28.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba-client-3.0.33-3.28.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba-common-3.0.33-3.28.el5.i386.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba-common-3.0.33-3.28.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba-swat-3.0.33-3.28.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-client-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-common-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-doc-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-domainjoin-gui-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-swat-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-winbind-3.3.8-0.51.el5.i386.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-winbind-devel-3.3.8-0.51.el5.i386.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-winbind-devel-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm
/mnt/mnt1/Server/samba3x-winbind-3.3.8-0.51.el5.x86_64.rpm

> (Samba client and samba common was available, but no smbd. *Again, I did
> NO googling on this, just did yum provides */smbd, got no results, and
> then used WinSCP.)
It appears you didn't even look for it.

--
Hakan (m1fcj) - http://www.hititgunesi.org
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 01:43 PM
Niki Kovacs
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

Hakan Koseoglu a écrit :
> On 24 November 2010 11:57, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Well, it's pretty similar. I'm not sure if I messed up the installation
> It's almost identical. Oracle kernel parameters & dependencies can be
> automatically installed during installation albeit later on Oracle
> RDBMS installation gives you warnings since it doesn't like the
> default values in /etc/sysctl.conf as populated by OEL.
>

Thanks for the detailed answers. I'm currently downloading the set of
five CDs. I already got the first ISO (my connection is slow), burnt it
and installed it on a spare machine. The installer looks indeed quite
the same as RHEL/CentOS (and makes you even wonder if they changed
something besides the name D). Since I have to wait for the other ISOs
to download, I went for a minimal install, e. g. everything unchecked,
even [Base]. Unfortunately, contrary to CentOS, this way of doing things
doesn't get me Yum, and a manual install of Yum apparently requires some
packages that are not on the first CD. So I'll simply wait for the other
ISOs to download and go for something less minimal.

I'm especially curious to know about the default Yum repos config :
where does Oracle Linux have its repos and its updates ? Do I have to
subscribe to something to get them or are they free ? Well, I guess I'll
have to wait for my download to finish to get the answer.

Cheers,

Niki
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 02:13 PM
Scott Robbins
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 12:05:39PM +0000, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:

> On 24 November 2010 11:57, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> > Well, it's pretty similar. *I'm not sure if I messed up the installation
> > I didn't find a samba package, but as this was for one oracle developer
> > to transfer files, we just used winscp. *(I also didn't look hard for a
> > samba package, at present, this is just a test.)
> Are you sure?

Yes, (I've snipped the rest, where you indicate other places I should
have looked, but thank you.)

As I said somewhere, I suspect I messed up the install, as I had to
later manually populate /etc/yum.repos.d after googling for where it
should be.

> > Disk naming seems slightly different--we went with more standard
> > partitions rather than LVM, and rather than /dev/sda and so on, it was
> > /dev---arrgh, I'm not at work, and my mind just went blank--errm, xda
> > and xdb? *At any rate, it will be fairly obvious.
> Nope, all comes as sda/sdb etc. if you don't use LVM unless your
> external storage is funky.

Hrrm. Ok, this is installation on a VMware esx server, using, when
asked to choose guest, an oracle machine. Devices are xvda and xvdb.

(Maybe something to do with it being on ESXi? On another, ESX 3.5
server, all RH is /dev/sda).

Along with, I'm sure, the OP, I want to thank you for this post, it
makes me realize that if we definitely do this for real, there are
obviously some things I missed.

--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

All: There's nothing we can't face.
Anya: Except for bunnies.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:05 PM
"Alexander Dalloz"
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

> I'm especially curious to know about the default Yum repos config :
> where does Oracle Linux have its repos and its updates ? Do I have to
> subscribe to something to get them or are they free ? Well, I guess I'll
> have to wait for my download to finish to get the answer.

http://public-yum.oracle.com/

The yum repo is public but just contains the releases, no intermediate
update packages. Those require an account on the ULN. See too

http://www.oracle.com/us/technologies/027617.pdf

The ULN is used by up2date, not yum.

https://linux.oracle.com/uln_faq.html

> Cheers,
>
> Niki

Alexander



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:30 PM
Hakan Koseoglu
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

On 24 November 2010 15:13, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> Nope, all comes as sda/sdb etc. if you don't use LVM unless your
>> external storage is funky.
> Hrrm. *Ok, this is installation on a VMware esx server, using, when
> asked to choose guest, an oracle machine. *Devices are xvda and xvdb.
Aaah, that's interesting. I've done it on an ESX 4.x server but got
none of those. On the other hand, I didn't say it was an Oracle
machine, just a RHEL one (didn't found it necessary to distinguish one
from other, we tend to deploy CentOS on our ESX server for test/dev
environments but we have a couple of RHEL and OEL ones as well.
That's worth trying again.

> Along with, I'm sure, the OP, I want to thank you for this post, it
> makes me realize that if we definitely do this for real, there are
> obviously some things I missed.
OEL is a funny one. The only reason it exists is to destroy the
upstream. They're completely unlike CentOS in mentality. Their main
reason of existence is cutting RHEL from support revenue. Our PHBs
decided to use OEL for customers since we're an Oracle shop at work so
getting all licences & support from a single source makes accounting
easier. In any case, after a typical Oracle Enterprise licence
calculation RHEL or OEL seems like peanuts. What worries me is with
OEL eating the support revenue from RHEL and simultaneously being
dependent on RHEL for upstream dev & patches, it's not a long-term
viable situation, it's not even a partnership.

There are other little things why we would go for OEL, one being the
OCFS2 when we do shared-storage clusters. Reading the small pring
gives you the impression that Oracle won't support OCFS2 unless it's
OEL. I'm not sure that's true but hey, that's what's been decided at
work.

As I mentioned, the other funny thing is if you choose
Oracle-validated package, it stuffs your sysconf.ctl with values. Then
try installing Oracle 11g (R1 or R2) on it, the installer barfs up
warnings about various kernel parameters being wrong.

There's a public yum repo but as Alexander has mentioned, not much of a use.

I'm not a big fan of OEL. I'd rather use upstream with paying
customers and CentOS internally. Unfortunately this decision is out of
my hands.
--
Hakan (m1fcj) - http://www.hititgunesi.org
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-24-2010, 03:52 PM
Scott Robbins
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:30:32PM +0000, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:
> On 24 November 2010 15:13, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>


> > Along with, I'm sure, the OP, I want to thank you for this post, it
> > makes me realize that if we definitely do this for real, there are
> > obviously some things I missed.

> OEL is a funny one. The only reason it exists is to destroy the
> upstream. They're completely unlike CentOS in mentality. Their main
> reason of existence is cutting RHEL from support revenue. Our PHBs
> decided to use OEL for customers since we're an Oracle shop at work so
> getting all licences & support from a single source makes accounting
> easier.

In our case, it has something to do with support--we are still
discussing this--my own take is that the problem won't be with the
platform, so we should use CentOS, or if management wants to be sure of
paid support, which does make sense, use RH. Oracle is saying there may
be issues of aspect X not being supported if we don't do all of this on
Oracle.

In any case, after a typical Oracle Enterprise licence
> calculation RHEL or OEL seems like peanuts.

LOL. Yes, literally out loud. It just echoes some of what one our web
developers said.

What worries me is with
> OEL eating the support revenue from RHEL and simultaneously being
> dependent on RHEL for upstream dev & patches, it's not a long-term
> viable situation, it's not even a partnership.
>
> There are other little things why we would go for OEL, one being the
> OCFS2 when we do shared-storage clusters. Reading the small pring
> gives you the impression that Oracle won't support OCFS2 unless it's
> OEL. I'm not sure that's true but hey, that's what's been decided at
> work.

Yeah, see above.
>

> As I mentioned, the other funny thing is if you choose
> Oracle-validated package, it stuffs your sysconf.ctl with values. Then
> try installing Oracle 11g (R1 or R2) on it, the installer barfs up
> warnings about various kernel parameters being wrong.
>
> There's a public yum repo but as Alexander has mentioned, not much of a use.
>

I think that's what I took (using a recommendation that I *thought* was
from Oracle's site), which may explain the samba thing. I didn't choose
it during installation, although, since for our uses, that WinSCP is an
easier and just as effective solution, that particular thing didn't
matter--still, I bet that's it.


> I'm not a big fan of OEL. I'd rather use upstream with paying
> customers and CentOS internally. Unfortunately this decision is out of
> my hands.

+1. Once again, many thanks for the input.


--
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 11-26-2010, 01:19 AM
Rob Kampen
 
Default CentOS vs. RHEL vs. Oracle Linux ?

Scott Robbins wrote:

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 04:30:32PM +0000, Hakan Koseoglu wrote:


On 24 November 2010 15:13, Scott Robbins <scottro@nyc.rr.com> wrote:



OEL is a funny one. The only reason it exists is to destroy the


upstream. They're completely unlike CentOS in mentality. Their main
reason of existence is cutting RHEL from support revenue. Our PHBs
decided to use OEL for customers since we're an Oracle shop at work so
getting all licences & support from a single source makes accounting
easier.





Oracle and Micro$oft both have similar ethos - their founders must have
gone to similar marketing schools and the resulting companies have only
one goal in mind - lots of $$$$ with as many curves, hooks and traps as
they can get away with.

I have decades of enterprise experience with both corporations and now
choose to use any other FOSS alternative I can find.

The Oracle embrace of RHEL will ultimately cause pain and grief to our
upstream provider and possibly cause them to make survival decisions
that will negatively impact CentOS. I sincerely hope this does not
occur but freeloaders that offer nothing back and use FUD marketing are
a blight in the industry.

As mentioned in the thread about Novell (that has moved to a poor
signal to noise ratio) - here is another company that tried to hook up
with Micro$oft and is heading to oblivion. Shame to see this happen to
Suse - another distro I used to use.


In our case, it has something to do with support--we are still
discussing this--my own take is that the problem won't be with the
platform, so we should use CentOS, or if management wants to be sure of
paid support, which does make sense, use RH. Oracle is saying there may
be issues of aspect X not being supported if we don't do all of this on
Oracle.

In any case, after a typical Oracle Enterprise licence


calculation RHEL or OEL seems like peanuts.



LOL. Yes, literally out loud. It just echoes some of what one our web
developers said.

What worries me is with


OEL eating the support revenue from RHEL and simultaneously being
dependent on RHEL for upstream dev & patches, it's not a long-term
viable situation, it's not even a partnership.



See my comments above - we haven't seen the end play on this yet.




There are other little things why we would go for OEL, one being the
OCFS2 when we do shared-storage clusters. Reading the small pring
gives you the impression that Oracle won't support OCFS2 unless it's
OEL. I'm not sure that's true but hey, that's what's been decided at
work.



Yeah, see above.








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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:12 PM.

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