A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support...

[Edmund White]

On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:

> Edmund White wrote:
> 
> > AIX, SCO and HP-UX customers to HP/Compaq servers with appropriate
> > versions of Redhat (7.x, 8) and our software on top. Luckily, the software
> > is easily portable and can run unmodified on any unix variant. Redhat 7.2,
> > 7.3 and 8.0 have proven to be the best match for our software/hardware
> > solution. The hardcore Compaq/HP Proliant server hardware support (for
> > ML370's and ML570's) is there. HP's agents add temperature, SCSI/array and
> 
> HP, Sun, Dell, IBM, Fujuitsu-Siemens, BEA, Oracle ... and Red Hat are going to
> certify servers and software _only_ with RHEL family.

The hardware on my existing servers is well-supported. Currently, HP's
Proliant health drivers work the best with Redhat 8 (versus the RHAS 2.1
drivers). I don't wish to make changes to those system because they are in
24/7 environments. In time, with new server deployments, I'll make an 
decision about Red Hat's ES and AS offerings. HP does not have drivers for 
those variants yet. That's expected in late November.
 
> > Now, I have 100+ Linux servers around the country, and a stream of new
> > customers. I've frozen new deployments at Redhat 8.0 because Redhat 9 was
> > a bit unstable for us and didn't allow me to use the HP/Compaq-specific
>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> did you fill a bug report at bugzilla ?

No need for the snippy reply. Our application did not play well the 
library change between RH8 and RH9. This was not a problem with 9. 
However, HP Proliant drivers were never released for RH9, so it was not 
an option for us. 

> > hardware agents/drivers. So, we've everything from 7.0 through 8.0 in the
> 
> Yes, RHL 9 doesn't have lot of official support from HW/SW vendors. And
> believe that HW/SW vendors will drop 'official' support to EOL RHL(7.x, 8.0..)

I'm not concerned about the official hardware support on currently-stable
production systems. 

> > patches for Redhat 7.0. I feel guilty installing 8.0 on new boxes because
> > I know support for it will be dropped at the end of the year. By Dec. 31,
> > all of my systems will be "unsupported." This looks awful because we're
> 
> awful ? They sent a notice on Dec-2002 about that.

Yep. We knew about the EOL, but didn't anticipate the end of the Red Hat 
Consumer product line.

> > I don't wish to buy into Redhat's Enterprise Linux because I don't
> > understand what I'm paying for. *I'm* the Redhat support. I just need
> 
> *longer lifetime and updates*. What are you looking for?
> 
> > I also build the kernels for each of the servers. I use vanilla kernel.org
> > 2.4.21 source with additional XFS patches. We sell 2, 4 and 8-way Proliant
>                                 ^^^    danger!!! ;-)
> 
> And *2.4.21 has security bugs*
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0307.2/1821.html
> better stay with a vendor kernel or with *latest latest latest* of kernel.org

We're not concerned about the local exploits detailed in that changelog.  
It's not an issue given the design of our software. The errata kernels
were too much of a moving target with regard to HP Proliant driver
support. In addition, the SGI XFS filesystem is very important to our 
application. 

> > servers. Am I missing out on anything from the "optimized" Redhat Advanced
> > Server kernels? I downloaded the RHEL 3.0 kernel and looked at the 200+
> > patches they make to the plain 2.4.21 source. Other than the
> > hyperthreading patch, none of the enhancements will make that much of a
> > difference in my company's application. Would using my stable kernel setup
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> I don't belive that, Did you test a _standard_ RHEL kernel against a
> kernel of kernel.org or RHL ?

I simply examined the patches and RPM spec file for the 2.4.21 RHEL 
source. Many of the backported patches are nice, but irrelevant in our 
setup. The hyperthreading scheduling patch is useful, and may make its way 
into my setup, along with the usual XFS patches.

> > with RHEL negate the purpose of using that OS? Patching XFS on TOP of
> > their already heavily-modified kernel is close to impossible.
> 
> Sorry, but neither a kernel of kernel.org nor RHL kernels are _ideal_ for
> a 8-way or 4-way servers. RHEL has a lot of backports from 2.6.
> 
> > not sure who they're targeting. I would imagine that most firms that
> > select Redhat Advanced server and are willing to pay the price
> > (>$1000/license) would have a staff talented enough to support it. So why
       ^^^^
> 
> prices are from 180$ to 2500$, or buy RHPW at 85-100$.

The details of the personal workstation product are sketchy. I'm still
waiting for a sales rep to get back to me about volume licensing, etc. for
new deployments. The initial costs do not bother me much. That gets passed
to the customer. These are clients that are used to paying $15,000/year
for their old AIX or HP-UX contracts, so the concept of RHEL licensing
isn't too bad.... My primary concern is existing clients. Without a nice
upgrade path, (remember, 24/7 operations) there's no good reason to mess
with otherwise stable systems. I'm not looking for new functionality..... 
just a few security patches. 

> > 8.0. I'm afraid to recommend RHEL 3.0 for these critical servers because
> > the userbase is going to be tiny, and we'll essentially be flushing-out
> > bugs..... in production. That's not a good situation.... * Sidenote: After
> 
> :-? Do you believe that RHEL kernels are untested?

No, but I need a few simple things.... XFS support isn't there, and it's 
not easy to patch over the hundreds of intrusive RHEL patches to 2.4.21. 

> > looking at Redhat's Enterprise kernel's default .config, I'm surprised
> > that they still enable HAM radio, PCMCIA, ISDN and other rarely-used (at
> > least in the US) functions by default. I mean, I choose to compile my own
> > kernels.... but I'm pretty sure that their target market for RHEL won't
> > bother. Odd.
> 
> It doesn't matter. They are *modules*
> 
> > Either way, since these servers are humming along without incident, I
> > don't have much motivation to reinstall and move to an untested (by my
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> what do your boss pay for ? X-D

I'm not paid to disrupt stable 24/7 setups for unnecessary operating 
system upgrades.

> > application's need) RHEL. Having continued support for RedHat 8 would be
> > very useful for those in my situation. I know this project is in its
> > infacy, but I think that 7.2-9.0 are must-support distributions. Please
>                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

-- 
Edmund William White
http://www.djedwhite.com
ewwhite at mac.com