Re: Storage server
Am Samstag, 15. September 2012 schrieb Bob Proulx:
> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 7. September 2012 schrieb Bob Proulx:
> > > Unfortunately I have some recent FUD concerning xfs. I have had
> > > some recent small idle xfs filesystems trigger kernel watchdog
> > > timer ...
> > > due to these lockups. Squeeze. Everything current. But when idle
> > > it would periodically lock up and the only messages in the syslog
> > > and on
> >
> > Squeeze and everything current?
> > No way. At least when using 2.6.32 default squeeze kernel. Its really
> > old. Did you try with the latest 3.2 squeeze-backports kernel?
>
> But in the future when when Debian Jessie is being released I am going
> to be reading then on the mailing list about how old and bad Linux 3.2
> is and how it should not be used because it is too old. How can it be
> really good now when it is going to be really bad in the future when
> supposedly we know more then than we do now? :-)
I read a complaint about the very nature of software development out of
your statement. Developers and testers improve software and sometimes
accidentally introduce regressions. Thats the very nature of the process
it seems to me.
Yes, by now 2.6.32 is old. It wasn´t exactly fresh as Debian Squeeze was
released, but now its really old. And regarding XFS 3.2 contains big load
of improvements regarding metadata performance like delayed logging and
more, other performance and bug fixes. Some bug fixes might have been
backported via Stable maintainers. But not the improvements that might
play an important role for a storage server setup.
> For my needs Debian Stable is a really very good fit. Much better
> than Testing or Unstable or Backports.
So by all means, use it!
Actually I didn´t even recommend to upgrade to Sid. If you read my post
carefully you can easily notice it. I specifically recommended just to
upgrade to a squeeze-backports kernel.
But still if you do not use XFS or use XFS and do not have any issue, you
may well decide to stick with 2.6.32. Your choice.
> Meanwhile I am running Sid on my main desktop machine. I upgrade it
> daily. I report bugs as I find them. I am doing so specifically so I
> can test and find and report bugs. I am very familiar with living on
> Unstable. Good for developers. Not good for production systems.
Then tell that to my production use laptop here. It obviously didn´t hear
about Debian Sid being unfit for producation usage.
My virtual server still has Squeeze, but I am considering to upgrade it to
Wheezy. Partly cause at the time I upgrade customer systems, I want to
have seen Wheezy at work nicely for a while ;).
Sure, not the way for everyone. Sure, when using Sid / Wheezy the
occassional bug can happen and I recommend using apt-listbugs and apt-
listchanges on those systems.
But I won´t sign a all-inclusive Sid is unfit for production statement. If
I know how to look up the bug database and how to downgrade stuff possibly
also by using snapshot.debian.org then I might decide to use Sid or Wheezy
on some machines – preferably in the desktop usage area – and be just fine
with it. On servers I am quite more reluctant unless its my own virtual
server, but even there I am not running Sid.
For people new to Debian or people unwilling to deal with an occassional
bug I recommend stable. Possibly with a backport kernel in some cases.
Well so I think we basically say almost the same, but in different wording
and accentuation. ;)
--
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7
Reply to: