Find the answer to your Linux question:
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Hi, I am currently building out a new production environment. Our current prod env uses RHEL5.8 but I am thinking of building out a RHEL6. It is an ideal time ...
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
  1. #1
    Just Joined!
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    8

    RHEL6 v RHEL5


    Hi,
    I am currently building out a new production environment. Our current prod env uses RHEL5.8 but I am thinking of building out a RHEL6. It is an ideal time to upgrade the OS across the board plus complete end-to-end testing will need to take place prior to go-live to prove stability.

    My current prod will become the DR site.
    I plan to gradually upgrade the DR & pprod after the new env go-live.

    This leaves a scenario where the live prod will run RHEL6 while the pprod and DR will run RHEL5 (for a short period of time).

    Question is this; if application testing on RHEL6 proves successful is it a bad idea to have pprod and DR running RHEL5 (if only for a limited period of time?).

    R,
    H

  2. #2
    Super Moderator Roxoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    3,879
    If you're going to be left with a development environment on CentOS 5 while your live system will be all tested and running smoothly on CentOS 6, what effect could that have? If your pre-production environment is CentOS 5, and you find/fix a major bug and need to test it before it goes live on CentOS 6, where will you test it?

    And you can bet that if your test environment (pre-production or 'DR' or whatever you call it) is running a different-enough OS to your production one to invalidate any testing you do on it, then you're guaranteed to need to do some testing before you complete the upgrade on your pre-production or DR system, that's just Sod's law.

    Is it possible to have a new pre-production environment ready before you go live with the new production one on CentOS 6? Even if its a kludgy and slow one on a VM somewhere, even if on old hardware?
    Linux user #126863 - see http://linuxcounter.net/

  3. #3
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    889
    I say stick with RHEL 5 unless you need a specific feature or package from RHEL 6. RHEL 5 has lots of life left.

    If you view migrating your existing application to RHEL 6 as inevitable in the near future, go for it. But, as a rule, I'd say major application upgrades and OS upgrades aren't ideally done when standing up a new site.

  4. #4
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,533
    Unfortunately, I don't agree with mizzle. Although RHEL 5.x systems are being kept up-to-date with respect to security vulns (latest is 5.10), there is a LOT of current code that won't work with it, so moving to a 6.x environment is recommended. Until earlier this year, our production systems were 5.x based. We have since moved to 6.x. Basic system performance improvements of 6.x from 5.x are significant, and are, in themselves, probably worthy of consideration.

    FWIW, we are talking about 10K + servers, world-wide...
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  5. #5
    Super Moderator Roxoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Rubberman View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't agree with mizzle. Although RHEL 5.x systems are being kept up-to-date with respect to security vulns (latest is 5.10), there is a LOT of current code that won't work with it, so moving to a 6.x environment is recommended. Until earlier this year, our production systems were 5.x based. We have since moved to 6.x. Basic system performance improvements of 6.x from 5.x are significant, and are, in themselves, probably worthy of consideration.

    FWIW, we are talking about 10K + servers, world-wide...
    Yep, completely agree. Having just spent the weekend setting up a new CentOS 6 server for my home, to replace my ageing CentOS 5 one, the performance improvement I've seen with NFS alone makes the migration worth it. DNS seems much quicker too. I only have one misgiving... what to about the missing ushare - there seems to be no alternative in the standard repository. Any suggestions, Rubberman?
    Linux user #126863 - see http://linuxcounter.net/

  6. #6
    Linux Guru Rubberman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I can be found either 40 miles west of Chicago, in Chicago, or in a galaxy far, far away.
    Posts
    11,533
    Well, you can try to build it from source. Here is the repository (on sourceforge.net): uShare | Free Communications software downloads at SourceForge.net

    However, you might want to see what else will serve that purpose (a UPnP media server for Linux) now. There may be better options, though I personally can't say what they may be.
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real time.
    Just remember, Semper Gumbi - always be flexible!

  7. #7
    Super Moderator Roxoff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nottingham, England
    Posts
    3,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Rubberman View Post
    Well, you can try to build it from source. Here is the repository (on sourceforge.net): uShare | Free Communications software downloads at SourceForge.net

    However, you might want to see what else will serve that purpose (a UPnP media server for Linux) now. There may be better options, though I personally can't say what they may be.
    Thanks for that. Building it from source is kinda where the CentOS community has pointed people up to now. I'd rather have a binary install, 'cos there's less to go wrong. It might even prove better to do the share with a Fedora box, but my media centre is XBMC on a raspberry pi - that'll mount by NFS or Samba, which might be more convenient. If I find anything good on the uPnP front, I'll shout up.
    Linux user #126863 - see http://linuxcounter.net/

  8. #8
    Linux Engineer
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    889
    Quote Originally Posted by Rubberman View Post
    Unfortunately, I don't agree with mizzle. Although RHEL 5.x systems are being kept up-to-date with respect to security vulns (latest is 5.10), there is a LOT of current code that won't work with it, so moving to a 6.x environment is recommended. Until earlier this year, our production systems were 5.x based. We have since moved to 6.x. Basic system performance improvements of 6.x from 5.x are significant, and are, in themselves, probably worthy of consideration.

    FWIW, we are talking about 10K + servers, world-wide...
    Right. But that's not the context of the question.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •