PDA

View Full Version : Fedora Core 2



hakim
3rd August 2004, 09:09 PM
Hi All,

I'm new to fedora forum, I had a question about the Fedora release process. Since Redhat doesn't actually support Fedora (if I am correct in saying so???) Is Fedora Core2 considered the stable version???

If not how does this work exactly? :confused:

blahrus
3rd August 2004, 09:27 PM
i would say it's stable . . . .

Evert
3rd August 2004, 09:36 PM
Fedora IS stable.

Consider it as red hat 10

Tashiro
3rd August 2004, 10:12 PM
Hey,

FC2 is stable, FC3T1 is a test version which still contains bugs. But that is why it is a test release.


Tashiro

taylor65
3rd August 2004, 11:21 PM
The new version nomenclature is that Fedora Core <x> is a stable release. The releases with Fedora Core Test <x> are not stable.

hakim
4th August 2004, 02:19 PM
I see, thanks guys...I actually started my Linux exploration on Redhat 7.2 like many. However, when redhat changed its business model I quickly looked for another free resource hopefully with better documentation.

Now I'm back and I would like to use Fedora to support a db server.

rkl
4th August 2004, 02:44 PM
FC2 has been stable for me, but only after I forced an automatic fsck whenever the system was shutdown uncleanly (e.g. via a power off at the mains switch, rather than logging out and shutting down properly). Two of our Dell PowerEdge servers with ext3 and a hardware RAID 5 config both had some initial problems (now sorted out) that forced me to power cycle them.

Because ext3 filesystems only do a journal log replay by default in FC2, bad inodes can persist on your system until the next full fsck. Hence, when we came to do a full backup, the bad inode would be hit and the machine would actually panic and hang. I change the default in the startup scripts to force a full fsck on an unclean shutdown and then did a full fsck - the servers have been fine since...running like clockwork all day, every day.

Despite a lot of pooh-poohing out there from people because of the impression that Fedora Core is a bleeding edge testing-only release of Linux, I think it's remarkably stable. My advice is that you wait a month or two after its release for any important patches to come out first before you employ it for anything serious, but you'd say the same thing about any OS distro (Linux, UNIX, Windows etc.) - heck, no-one sensible ever employs an MS server until at least Service Pack 2 has come out, because it's usually riddled with bugs until then :)

hakim
4th August 2004, 02:56 PM
FC2 has been stable for me, but only after I forced an automatic fsck whenever the system was shutdown uncleanly (e.g. via a power off at the mains switch, rather than logging out and shutting down properly). Two of our Dell PowerEdge servers with ext3 and a hardware RAID 5 config both had some initial problems (now sorted out) that forced me to power cycle them.

Because ext3 filesystems only do a journal log replay by default in FC2, bad inodes can persist on your system until the next full fsck. Hence, when we came to do a full backup, the bad inode would be hit and the machine would actually panic and hang. I change the default in the startup scripts to force a full fsck on an unclean shutdown and then did a full fsck - the servers have been fine since...running like clockwork all day, every day.

Despite a lot of pooh-poohing out there from people because of the impression that Fedora Core is a bleeding edge testing-only release of Linux, I think it's remarkably stable. My advice is that you wait a month or two after its release for any important patches to come out first before you employ it for anything serious, but you'd say the same thing about any OS distro (Linux, UNIX, Windows etc.) - heck, no-one sensible ever employs an MS server until at least Service Pack 2 has come out, because it's usually riddled with bugs until then :)

I really appreciate your feedback... this is good to know...I was actually going to test it for about six months and slowly integrate Fedora into my "production" environment. I figured that was enough time to patch any bugs I find and write customized scripts that are OS specific... does FC2 support "tcsh"?

crackers
5th August 2004, 03:41 AM
does FC2 support "tcsh"?
Yup - I think it's on the installation disks. If not, it's certainly available via the apt/yum repositories.

I would really hesitate using unsupported distributions in a "production" environment, though - while they're definitely cheaper (e.g. "free"), you get ZERO support, so you're totally on your own if something goes <----- thataway. I understand you might be on a tight budget, but you'll be in some pretty big trouble that you may not be able to get out of without some tech support.

hakim
5th August 2004, 03:20 PM
I would really hesitate using unsupported distributions in a "production" environment, though - while they're definitely cheaper (e.g. "free"), you get ZERO support, so you're totally on your own if something goes <----- thataway.
You're right of course... I will probably reconsider the whole thing, however we have been using FreeBSD 4.10 and our dba has been belly aching for a Linux distro to run Oracle on as in the past we used Oracle 7.2 ...what am i to do? :D

rkl
5th August 2004, 10:22 PM
If you have experienced staff who know Linux (and Fedora Core in this case) well and are a small company, then buying support may not be worth it. Also, if you run non-supported software or hardware, what happens then ? For example, if you rebuild the Red Hat Enterprise kernel with additional modules or different options - would that void your software support (possibly) ?

Clearly, you should run test systems with OS'es like Fedora Core 2 first and make sure they're stable (I would say at least a month without a problem) before you attempt to roll out any sort of production system. Similarly, patch your test box and soak the patches for a week or two (or even longer if they're kernel patches) before applying to any live boxes.

I don't agree that you need support to run a production server in all cases - it does depend on your budget and IT staff skills really. I personally think *hardware* support is arguably more important than software support, because the former can be tricky to fix in-house on brand-name servers, whereas the latter can be fixed by clueful admins.

divali
20th August 2004, 04:24 PM
Iwould say it's pretty stable. But I do find it will automatically shut down after about 20 mins. when left untouched. At least my system does.
divali.

crackers
21st August 2004, 05:49 AM
our dba has been belly aching for a Linux distro to run Oracle on as in the past we used Oracle 7.2 ...what am i to do?
If you want to continue getting Oracle support (ask your DBA about that and you'll probably get looked at funny), you'll have to run it on an officially sanctioned version of Linux - which usually means RHAS, which is a commercial version.

This is one of the things that I and several others have wanted to point out: just because you can get Fedora "for free," and it's a pretty durn super distribution, there are times and places where you do not or cannot use it. When folks say "production" or mention some high(er)-dollar software like Oracle, it's definitely a situation where you get what you pay for.

This does not mean that Fedora's not suitable or even not that great - it is! I use the heck out of it, especially as a development environment for stuff that will run on RHAS, eventually. But I wouldn't bet the company's money on it...