Weblog entry #5 for nicc777
See all weblog entries made by nicc777.
We have a number of Debian servers (100+), and we recently upgraded from woody to sarge. Problem is that we will go through that same routine in a year or so. It further seems that a distribution like Ubuntu aims at longer release cycles (around 5 years).
What are your thoughts on this - will it be better to go with a longer release cycle distro, or should I just bite the bullet and do a distro upgrade more frequently?
Any comments will be highly appreciated.
Thanks
Nico
Comments on this Entry
Let's say your 100 servers are hosting your own software. If your release cycle for your software is frequent, a quicker-release distro like Debian will suit you.
If it's "write once and forget", go for Ubuntu, then you get the security updates.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Ubuntu is releasing every 6 months, but assures continued support for 5 years.
And I think that they only guarantee upgrades from one release to the next, not beyond (as does Debian).
Debian is far slower for its releases. I think the release of Sarge took more than 3 years from the release of Woody. Debian is known to have a really slow, and ever-increasing release cycle (they also support far more architectures). The first plans talk about thinking of releasing Etch in september this year (2006), but we all know that if it follows the previous releases scheme, it will take at least another 1.5-2 years before actual release.
In my opinion, there is less testing and QA in Ubuntu than on Debian.
So, if you want to always have the latest versions of your software (still, mostly for the desktops, not the servers), go for Ubuntu, but be prepared to upgrade every 6 months or so. This is in my sense ideal for small numbers of machines for the desktop. Having to upgrade a lot of machines, and face the changes when you have to support many users, is no fun.
If you want a stable distribution, perfectly-suited to servers, go for Debian, you won't regret it.
Currently, I see no point in Ubuntu for servers, as it is not easier to install than Debian, and it ships with less supported packages (and less packages for server on the CD).
I would be perfectly happy if Debian was release every 1.5 year, and Ubuntu every 9 months, to use the first on servers or embedded devices, and the second on desktops (x86, amd64 or PowerPC).
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
My first thought was that if I had 100 servers I'd be using something like CFEngine to manage them - and that would make upgrades pretty painless.
But that aside I think it depends on the roles the servers are fulfilling to a large extent. The two approaches seem to be:
- Upgrade from Sarge to Etch to Etch+1 every 12/18 months
- Install Ubuntu and keep the servers static for five years.
The first might not be too bad of an option, if we assume that the releases are sufficiently close together that no significant changes will occur. (This might well be true, we've done most of the "big" transitions with the release of Sarge. For example Exim3 to Exim4, Apache to Apache2, etc).
The upgrade to Etch doesn't give you a lot of new software, so barring things like the X.org transition and library API changes it should be a safe bet for a headless server.
On the other hand if you use Ubuntu you'll have no upgrades to make, just security fixes. I'm honestly skeptical that a distribution which receives only security updates for five years is going to be an attainable goal, and a usable system.
Sure most things will work, but with my experience of backporting fixes to woody I can safely say that it is a hard job - and will leave you with outdated software. (Although to be honest on a server that might not be an issue. Apache which is old is still Apache.)
Really I'm not going to jump one way or the other, but there are a lot of interesting things to think about.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Where it exists it is in stable datacenters doing simple bespoke tasks (running a database). Even here it is rare things won't be upgrades, replaced, or enhanced for 5 years.
What some people are looking for is low maintanance, and I think Debian does that well enough.
Things don't change as fast as some people think in computing, but five years ago no one had SATA, no one had XP, MACOSX didn't exist. So people needing this sort of release cycle probably also need 5+ year hardware support contract so they can be sure to replace like with like (as you can be sure the old OS won't readily support new hardware without major reworking).
People on this sort of release cycle almost certainly aren't plugged directly(!) into the Internet, and I would also doubt the ability of many companies to support a whole distro over this period. Heck it scares me enough people are still deploying Apache 1, sendmail, and other stuff that is well past its best.
Only company I ever saw live up to this sort of long term commitment in anger was IBM, who I saw repair a IBM DOS PC in the mid 1990's, as part of a general repair contract for the site I was on. They even had a copy of Norton Disk Doctor version 1. Heck did SUN Microsystems even exist when this thing was bought - probably just (1982). That was only hardware and OS support, no guarantee on the application software.
Even where there is specific long term need for a small dedicated systems, I'd bet it is often cheaper to just do the intervening upgrades, than pay for the support contracts to be able to make sure it all keeps ticking over in its earlier incarnation.
Current Debian release cycles aren't 12 to 18 months are they Steve? Even the planned life of Sarge is over 18 months.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
[ Send Message | View Steve's Scratchpad | View Weblogs ]
I'm not sure what the expected release cycle is liable to be.
I've certainly seen a figure of 18 months being quoted in several places, but I don't really pay too much attention to the Etch freezes/notices at the moment. When it becomes obvious that a release is impending I guess we'll know.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
It further seems that a distribution like Ubuntu aims at longer release cycles (around 5 years).I'm sorry but i wanna know where you have seen that. In the ubuntu website, i have only seen this phrase
Each release is supported with free security updates and fixes for at least 18 months.I also looked at the support page, but haven't seen anything. If you can tell me where you have seen this information, it interests me.
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
http://forums.lugradio.org/viewtopic.php?t=1123
and more at Yahoo! :
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=ubuntu+linux+SERVER+SUPPORT+CYCL E+&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2&fl=0&x=wrt
Cheers
===============================================
=== http://4j.blogspot.com/ ===
=== http://sourceforge.net/projects/lampas/ ===
===============================================
Joh 3:36
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Please blog regarding your decision, whenever you find a sollution...
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
CFengine looks ok, but our current system works for us, so I will not use it in the immediate future. Interesting project though. I think if we used it from the start it would have made more sense.
Thanks
===============================================
=== http://4j.blogspot.com/ ===
=== http://sourceforge.net/projects/lampas/ ===
===============================================
Joh 3:36
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]
Some may post comments there, so if you are following the tread, just check that site as well.
===============================================
=== http://4j.blogspot.com/ ===
=== http://sourceforge.net/projects/lampas/ ===
===============================================
Joh 3:36
[ Parent | Reply to this comment ]