[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rhelv5-list] XFS with RHEL5?



On Nov 25, 2007 10:52 AM, Jos Vos <jos xos nl> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 06:33:20PM +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
>
> > The major goal of CentOS is binary compatibility with RHEL.
> >
> > I'm sure it lacks certification, but that's not the same as "not
> > working." If it runs on RHEL there's every likelihood it will also work
> > on CentOS.
> >
> > If there's an actual problem, and IBM/Tivoli tries to give you the
> > runaround, you might well muse in their hearing, that perhaps Amanda or
> > Bacula will do the job. Certainly, both are in use on IBM's zSeries
> > systems, so they're capable of fairly serious work.
>
> Although I agree with your statements, this is not the way it works with
> big companies.  They do formally not support their stuff on non-listed
> platforms and big customers on their turn do not want to take the risk
> of running critical applications on (partly) non-supported software.

Yes, that is the unfortunate truth. It all boils down to getting
support in case to
catastrophal desaster (all backups somwhow screwed, all copies affected, all
backup locations in flames/flooded/...) or some unexpected malfunction when
restoring data. If we use a certified system, we can demand IBM to work day
and night trying to fix it, while the use of an uncertified system opens up the
possibility of refusal of support and shoving the blame to us (meaning my team
and me). It might be possible that the use of e.g. CentOS due to its binary
compatibility to RHELcould be judged as valid by a court, but that would take
months, which is unacceptable in a restore scenario and not even guaranteered.

It is vastly different to e.g. using XFS by choice: in this case we/I
take the risk of
a possible failure and subsequently needed restore from backup, but this has not
the risk of bringing down the company or irrecoverably loosing data.

So, I'll either have to stick with RHEL5 (and ext3) or change it to
SLES10 (which
offers XFS as John pointed out). I have to admit that I'm a bit
hesistant to use SuSe
in a server environment, since it really despise all that automatic system wide
reconfiguring that it going on, when you change some small detail.
I've had some
really bad experiences with that.

So, for the time being, we've talked it over and decided to use RHEL5
with ext3 for the
time being, until a better solution is offered (or CentOS/Fedora are
officially supported
by IBM). I hope that HP might convince Redhat to include XFS in future
versions).

Thanks for all you replies and helpful comment!

Joe


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]