User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 2:48 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
In reply to: Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules by airlied
Parent article: Enterprise distributions and free software

yes I have, I have been doing so for 14 years now.

I can point at the availability of the systems that I manage and compare it to the availability of the systems running RHEL and make a very good case that my linus kernel on whitebox systems is better than their RHEL on top-tier branded systems

if you blindly install a RHEL upgrade/kernel on your system without testing it, you will have some pretty horrible problems. If you are doing the testing, then it doesn't really matter if you are testing RHEL or linus-kernel based systems (although, if you run into something strange, you can get debugging and fixes for the linus-kernel faster than I've seen happen with RHEL)


(Log in to post comments)

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 4:18 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

I have to say I really haven't had this problem, even when running triple digit numbers of systems I can't think of the last time i've had an RHEL update go bad, kernel or otherwise.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 13:20 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588) [Link]

RHEL 4.5 was a disaster of an upgrade:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=327591

Redhat took all of the upstream nfs client "fixes" that google primarily wrote and backported them to RHEL4. It did not go so well. The best thing I got out of working on this bug was ninja-level nfs debugging experience. See comment 8 for the secret sauce.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 18:21 UTC (Tue) by ricwheeler (subscriber, #4980) [Link]

NFS client patches that google wrote?

Are you confusing google (no interest in NFS) with NetApp which employs Trond, the upstream client maintainer?

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 20:11 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

If you compare the stability of vanilla Linus kernels on whiteboxen to $ENTERPRISE kernels on top-tier machines, you don't know if the differences are due to the kernel's stability, broken(ish) support for funky hardware on the "top" machines, different workloads/stress, or even simply due to different definitions of "stable" in different environments.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 12, 2011 21:00 UTC (Sat) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

true, although according the 'prevailing wisdom' both selecting top tier vendors and going with enterprise kernels are choices that are supposed to increase reliability

that being said, I used the kernel.org kernel on the top tier boxes for a few years before deciding that they didn't provide any additional reliability.

as for the argument that reliability means different things, in the case I am referring to, reliability is measured and defined by the same people.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds