Fedora 9 suitable for a server?

Pumpino · #1 5th June 2008, 06:49 AM

Is Fedora generally, and Fedora 9 more specifically, a suitable choice for a home server that handles mail and web for three domains? I continually hear people say that it's more sensible to stick with CentOS on a server but I like the idea of having a more current distro with the latest packages and kernel.

One thing that I worry about is upgrading every six months. I recently installed Fedora 8 on a spare box, downloaded all the updates, rebooted a couple of times to ensure everything was working fine, and then upgraded to Fedora 9 using the DVD. I installed no additional packages or repos.

Well, I had nothing but trouble! The network connection refused to start automatically after each boot, regardless of what I did. It was working perfectly under F8. I then downloaded the small number of F9 updates (including a kernel update) and attempted to reboot, only to have the box hang with the word "GRUB" appearing. I don't mean a grub prompt; there was no option to enter anything. I had to boot into rescue mode from the F9 DVD and use chroot to reinstall grub on a partition from a previous installation.

If I encountered this experience on the actual server at home, I'd be in trouble. What are people's experiences and advice re. Fedora as a server compared to CentOS (not wanting to start a debate; I just want some feedback). Thanks.

#2 5th June 2008, 06:58 AM

It seems to me you've answered the question yourself

Your choice is:

1: CentOS 5.1. Built on tried and tested software. 5 years support.

2. Fedora 9. Recently released. Contains new and beta software. 6 monthly release cycle. Average supported lifetime of 1 year. Can be buggy right after release and updates can sometimes break things.

Edit: Also, upgrading from one release to another can cause problems, as you found out. The recommended way is to back up your data and do a clean install...

Wayne

lazlow · #3 5th June 2008, 04:58 PM

If you are worried about security:

Quote:

I like the idea of having a more current distro with the latest packages and kernel.

RHEL/Centos is very current. RH is also funny about the way they handle kernels. The version number of the kernel may be old but it usually has all the patches that make it equivalent to a kernel with a "current" version number.

forkbomb · #4 6th June 2008, 03:21 AM

Ahh, this debate again.

The prevailing opinion around here - and I think it's right - is that if you need a long-term server and want to stick with the RPM-based distros, pick CentOS if you can/want to support it yourself or RedHat if you want paid support. To be fair, there are other distros that aren't RPM-based that make great server distros as well. That's been discussed around here before, so poke around if interested.

In short, I personally wouldn't use Fedora for a server that I planned to keep online for any length of time. It spins too fast and is too volatile for a role that requires rugged stability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pumpino

I like the idea of having a more current distro with the latest packages and kernel.

So do I, and there's no problem with that. However, as mentioned, there are many distros that are plenty current as well. The problem with Fedora on a server is that it is so current it hurts sometimes.

And "pain" in this context can mean downtime. Not exactly a goal of servers.

marcrblevins · #5 6th June 2008, 06:20 AM

Well, the only time Fedora sucks was that one month the kernel didn't like our raid promise card. Just use your prior kernel until a fixed kernel comes along. Been using Fedora since Fedora Core 1 was born!

If you are still into Fedora, go for it and if you had updated kernel issue, go to the prior kernel, etc.

Ashok Harnal · #6 6th June 2008, 10:07 AM

I think Fedora developers tend to take a lot of risk. Not only new and beta software are included but software that is yet to mature also gets included. By the time I got used to Pirut and puplet, in came PackageKit with so many problems that finally I found that yumex was the best.

Ashok Harnal

#7 6th June 2008, 10:40 AM

Welcome to the Fedora philosophy. That's what Fedora is all about, trying new and cutting edge software. Sometimes it works fine, sometimes it breaks. If you're looking for something stable then you've come to the wrong place.

Quote:

What is Fedora?

Fedora is freedom and rapid innovation.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview

Wayne

Doug G · #8 7th June 2008, 01:06 AM

I've been using Fedora as basic file & web servers for myself and clients since FC5. I upgrade the client systems via yum (command line), and other than one CUPS issue on an update that affected one client server, everything has been completely stable. None have ever needed a reinstall, or even a site visit to do an upgrade.

Ashok Harnal · #9 7th June 2008, 06:26 AM

There is a lot of truth in what you say. By and large rapid changes in Fedora are on the user-interface side. Behind the scenes, on the server side changes are mostly of incremental nature so as not to disturb the existing configuration.

Ashok Harnal

Pumpino · #10 6th July 2008, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marcrblevins

If you are still into Fedora, go for it and if you had updated kernel issue, go to the prior kernel, etc.

Do you yum upgrade between versions of Fedora? Do you always run the latest release or do you only upgrade every 12 months once a release reaches its end of life?

It's interesting that upgrading via DVD/CD is supported by Fedora but most people use yum without any issue.

Fedora releases a kernel update about once a month. Would you reboot for every update? CentOS has released kernel updates a week apart before, so no distro avoids it.

EDIT: This Sourceforge server running FC2 seems to be going strong, presumably without updates. http://phpsysinfo.sourceforge.net/ph...mplate=classic

lazlow · #11 6th July 2008, 04:21 AM

Quote:

It's interesting that upgrading via DVD/CD is supported by Fedora but most people use yum without any issue.

I do not believe that most people use yum to upgrade(upgrade not update) and I think that a significant portion of those who do run into issues. There are certainly exceptions to this. I also think that a lot of individuals run yum upgrades and THINK that the issues that they are having have nothing to do with this fact. Strangely enough when they finally break down and do a fresh install, the issues tend to just go away.

Pumpino · #12 6th July 2008, 04:59 AM

That's all true and fair.

I just came across this page that suggests that RHEL 6 is likely to be a long time coming.
http://lwn.net/Articles/286885/
I suspect that the expectation that a new release of RHEL will occur after every third release of Fedora is no longer realistic.

lazlow · #13 6th July 2008, 05:45 AM

I think that this was just a matter of time. The changes that occur (for the sever sections) are mostly evolutionary rather than revolutionary. If you look at the changes (again as related to servers) in the jump from FC1 to FC2 was pretty big. Now compare that to the jump between F7 and F9. Essentially no change (servers). This really removes the motivation for RHEL to come out with a new release.

What may occur in RHEL due to this is their stance on major revision changes. I suspect that we may see a change in kernel (major revision), FF3, and a number of other daily desktop apps all within RHEL5's lifetime.

Pumpino · #14 6th July 2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lazlow

I suspect that we may see a change in kernel (major revision), FF3, and a number of other daily desktop apps all within RHEL5's lifetime.

I was surprised that they included a beta version of FF3 and OpenOffice 2.3 with RHEL 5.2. Doesn't including beta software and a major kernel update go against the RHEL philosophy?

lazlow · #15 6th July 2008, 06:03 AM

The philosophy is more to be rock solid. The possible major kernel change I was referring to would not be on an untested kernel version. Assuming that the hdX/sdX change over gets debugged (it started in F7) that would be a major stepping stone for RHEL( I am of course assuming it will be debugged by mid F10).

I am a little surprised with FF3 being included (it has not shown up on any of my machines with 5.0) and it has not been as throughly vetted as RH usually requires(so far). I do not really think you could call OpenOffice 2.3 a beta version, it pretty much has all the bugs worked out and has been out at least since F8. Even if OO was beta it would not really be a mission critical app.