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 05-30-2012, 05:26 PM
"Max Pyziur"
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>> To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
>> router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
>> co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.
>>
>> Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
>> Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
>> appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2 machine
>> used in a production environment, and no effort was made to create that
>> impression.
>
> Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.

No it wasn't. That was your mistaken interpretation.

> <snip>
>>>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>>>>> proceed sequentially.
>>>
>>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>>
>> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
>> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That
>> was
>> my point in starting this thread.
>
> *sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.

You should do a better job of signalling your sarcasm.

> with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work to
> build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.

I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
machine.

> <snip>
> mark

Max Pyziur
pyz@brama.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 05:37 PM
John R Pierce
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On 05/30/12 10:26 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
> machine.

then back it up, wipe it and deploy 5.latest on the old hardware,
reconfigure all your required services.



--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 05:59 PM
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

Max Pyziur wrote:
>> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
>>> router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
>>> co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.
>>>
>>> Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
>>> Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components to
>>> appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2
>>> machine used in a production environment, and no effort was made to
create that
>>> impression.
>>
>> Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.
>
> No it wasn't. That was your mistaken interpretation.

I accept that wasn't what you *intended*. However, what you *wrote* left
that as a reasonable interpretation.

<http://24.5-cent.us/egoless_documentation.doc>
>
<snip>
>>>>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense to
>>>>>> proceed sequentially.
>>>>
>>>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>>>
>>> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
>>> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That
>>> was my point in starting this thread.
>>
>> *sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.
>
> You should do a better job of signalling your sarcasm.

I did not expect you to actually consider that as within reason.
>
>> with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work
>> to build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.
>
> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
> machine.

<snip>

Fine. Another answer would be to add more disk, if necessary, and build
5.8 on the machine, in such a manner as to allow you to reboot into either
the current or the new version. For further clarification as to what I'm
suggesting, try reading my other published article:
<http://24.5-cent.us/upgrading_linux.doc>

mark

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 06:21 PM
"Max Pyziur"
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>> Max Pyziur wrote:
>>>>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>> To clarify, the machine is a test/development box that also acts as a
>>>> router to a DSL connection that (for the most part) replicates a
>>>> co-located production machine that is currently running CentOS 5.8.
>>>>
>>>> Until recently, energies have been dedicated to other endeavors.
>>>> Currently, efforts are being made to upgrade all relevant components
>>>> to
>>>> appropriate recent stable releases of OS's. In no way was an FC2
>>>> machine used in a production environment, and no effort was made to
> create that
>>>> impression.
>>>
>>> Ok. That *was* the impression you gave.
>>
>> No it wasn't. That was your mistaken interpretation.
>
> I accept that wasn't what you *intended*. However, what you *wrote* left
> that as a reasonable interpretation.

Here is what I wrote:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126307.html

"... It's a test machine that replicates a production server. ..."

How would you improve it in order to remedy the apparent confusion?


> <http://24.5-cent.us/egoless_documentation.doc>
>>
> <snip>
>>>>>>> Last, CentOS is built from Fedora Core 6. Usually, it makes sense
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> proceed sequentially.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're going to upgrate to FC3, 4 and 5 before going to CentOS?
>>>>
>>>> Possibly. Unless someone else can attest to their own experience and
>>>> knowledge that it's generally ok to move from FC2 to CentOS 5.*. That
>>>> was my point in starting this thread.
>>>
>>> *sigh* I was being sarcastic. Doing all that work would be silly, esp.
>>
>> You should do a better job of signalling your sarcasm.
>
> I did not expect you to actually consider that as within reason.
>>
>>> with what would be needed to do so. Again, it would be *much* less work
>>> to build a good box of 5.8, or maybe 6.2, and load and configure that.
>>
>> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use
>> what
>> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my
>> interest
>> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the
>> production
>> machine.
>
> <snip>
>
> Fine. Another answer would be to add more disk, if necessary, and build
> 5.8 on the machine, in such a manner as to allow you to reboot into either
> the current or the new version. For further clarification as to what I'm
> suggesting, try reading my other published article:
> <http://24.5-cent.us/upgrading_linux.doc>

Thanks. I've already looked at it.

I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships. Given
that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
for a recommendation for a clean install.

Thanks.

Max Pyziur
pyz@brama.com

> mark
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 06:36 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>
> Here is what I wrote:
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126307.html
>
> "... It's a test machine that replicates a production server. ..."
>
> How would you improve it in order to remedy the apparent confusion?

But in an earlier post you said it was a 'server environment' which at
least sort-of implies that it is serving something.

>
> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships.

Fedora doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
versions or at least didn't for those versions. My experience was
that even within a major rev. an update could kill your system.
CentOS doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
versions.

> Given
> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

I have seen success stories for FC6->CentOS conversions, along with
some quirky stuff you have to to to fix it up. If you google enough
you might be able to do that. However, FC2 was not at all like FC6
and I doubt if you'll find anyone who has made that or even a part of
the FC2->FC6 path work. It would be crazy to try that without good
backups. But if you have a place for the backups, you could use it
instead to install and test a system that will work.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 06:38 PM
Bowie Bailey
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On 5/30/2012 2:21 PM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to use
> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to build
> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships. Given
> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

The issue here is that upgrading between major versions (CentOS 4.x to
5.x) is not supported or recommended. And if it is not recommended to
upgrade from CentOS 4 to CentOS 5, it is even less recommended to try an
upgrade from Fedora Core 2 to CentOS 5.

As has been mentioned before, the results of the upgrade will be a box
that claims to be CentOS, but has lots of extraneous packages and files
left behind from the previous Fedora install. This will result in a
system that seems to run fine, but is likely to have strange problems
from time to time when something tries to use one of these old files.

--
Bowie
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 06:49 PM
John R Pierce
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On 05/30/12 11:21 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
> I'm not yet looking
> for a recommendation for a clean install.

there is no other sane approach. you can upgrade the system a half
dozen times through those intermediate versions, and sort out every
issue that comes along, or you can build a clean new system (either on
the same hardware or not) and do it all at once.

this is a test/dev box for an existing EL5 production system? make a
backup of the production system and restore it on the dev box,
reconfigure the network, yum install any additional development packages
(C compilers, etc), done, go home and have a beer.




--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 06:56 PM
"Max Pyziur"
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Max Pyziur <pyz@brama.com> wrote:
>>
>> Here is what I wrote:
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126307.html
>>
>> "... It's a test machine that replicates a production server. ..."
>>
>> How would you improve it in order to remedy the apparent confusion?
>
> But in an earlier post you said it was a 'server environment' which at
> least sort-of implies that it is serving something.

The third post in the thread is the link that I cited above.

The first post in the thread (mine) -
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2012-May/126303.html
- reads as follows

" ...Greetings,

I *do* still have an FC2 box.

Would anyone second this procedure:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14052&forum=37&post_id=4794 5

Thanks.
..."


In the course of the discussion, I did reference that it was a backup/test
machine to a co-located CentOS box that is a production server.

But I clarified early in the thread that it was not production.

So how would you clarify the sentence of my second (and the third) posting
of the thread so that it is unequivocally clear that it is not a
production machine?



>>
>> I appreciate your and others' efforts at advice. I'm simply trying to
>> use
>> existing hardware (that's the eco-friendly approach), and trying to
>> build
>> my understanding of the Fedora/CentOS operational relationships.
>
> Fedora doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
> versions or at least didn't for those versions. My experience was
> that even within a major rev. an update could kill your system.
> CentOS doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
> versions.

That was made very clear in discussions following the introduction of
CentOS 6.x.


>> Given
>> that it has been stated that CentOS 5.x was built from FC6, and that
>> someone had already offered general guidance on the upgrade procedure (I
>> shared the link in my initial request), I thought that it would be
>> worthwhile asking the CentOS-users list to see if someone from this
>> community had any direct experience with the upgrade. I'm not yet
>> looking
>> for a recommendation for a clean install.
>
> I have seen success stories for FC6->CentOS conversions, along with
> some quirky stuff you have to to to fix it up. If you google enough
> you might be able to do that. However, FC2 was not at all like FC6
> and I doubt if you'll find anyone who has made that or even a part of
> the FC2->FC6 path work. It would be crazy to try that without good
> backups. But if you have a place for the backups, you could use it
> instead to install and test a system that will work.

Thank you; this is very helpful.

My hope is to upgrade; that way I don't have to change/specify partition
topology, and hopefully only minimally adjust the existing configurations.

I have enough experience with unraveling rpm package
dependency/duplication issues, having gone through F14->F15 DVD upgrade
that failed/froze (in the end I worked with the "rescue" portion of the
DVD and unraveled duplicate/missing package issues using yum and rpm; you
can find that thread on the Fedora Users list).

>
> --
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell@gmail.com

MP
pyz@brama.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 07:06 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On 05/30/2012 12:37 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/30/12 10:26 AM, Max Pyziur wrote:
>> I'm not interested in acquiring more hardware but rather hope to use what
>> I have. It works satisfactorily in its current configuration; my interest
>> is in aligning the OS of the test/backup unit with that of the production
>> machine.
> then back it up, wipe it and deploy 5.latest on the old hardware,
> reconfigure all your required services.

exactly!

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-30-2012, 07:07 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default Upgrading FC2 to CentOS 5.* - anyone second this?

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 1:51 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> Am 30.05.2012 20:36, schrieb Les Mikesell:
>> Fedora doesn't support/recommend in-place upgrades across major
>> versions or at least didn't for those versions. *My experience was
>> that even within a major rev. an update could kill your system.
>
> then you are doing something wrong

Yes, I was running it on an IBM server box that they didn't bother to
test. Found out much later that the pre-update kernel worked on the
firmware I had installed and the mid-rev update they pushed needed a
firmware bios update to run there.

> am i really the only one who did some hundret successfull
> fedora dist-upgrades in the last 4 years with yum and
> no downtime longer than a normal kernel update?

Probably. Lots of other things broke in same-major-rev updates until
I gave up at FC6. Whether any particular machine runs or not has
never been a priority for fedora. Maybe your hardware matches one of
the developers. On the other hand, I had 2 4-year uptime runs with a
pre-fedora RH 7.3. (had to move it once). For about 6 of those years
it was very busy.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:23 AM.

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