[SAC] [Fwd: [support.osuosl.org #11303] OSGeos New Servers]

[Hamish]

> Alex Mandel wrote:
> > One note, we had to go with ext3 instead of ext4 because
> > the current Debian Stable kernels don't support ext4 well.
> > We may want to consider a different version of Debian/Ubuntu
> > for the download mirror later on to take advantage of the
> > speed increase of ext4 (I've heard it rivals XFS)

Martin Spott wrote:
> I wonder why we then didn't go for XFS right from the
> beginning, if XFS is the reference anyway !?

I agree with Martin. XFS is proven and well tested technology
which requires no special updates to bleeding-edge hotfixes.
Ext4 does not have the track record and does require custom
package installs (which should be avoided as much as possible).
Bugfixes and tuning are still dribbling into the newest Kernel
releases. In a year or two it could be the FS of choice but
for now, IMpersonalO it is still too immature.

a worthwhile read, more FS comparisons linked from the comments
section:

http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388
 (written for Etch == Lenny-1 aka "oldstable")


IMHO backports.org should be used as sparingly as possible, it
contains anything any DebDev decided to upload to it, has not
been through the QA gauntlet as such, and does not get formal
or timely security updates by the Debian Security Team (AFAIK).

The default should be to build the install using default stable
distro packages + security + volatile updates.

deb http://security.debian.org/ lenny/updates main
deb http://volatile.debian.org/debian-volatile lenny/volatile main

(volatile contains things like daylight savings database updates,
etc. which are not strictly security fixes)

After the install is complete, and only then, add backports.org
as a package source and then explicitly install individual
backported packages which you absolutely can not live without.

(see also "apt pinning")


What's the point of using an ultra-stable base distro like
Debian/stable if you move in and start installing the latest
greatest gadgets off the assembly line as soon as you get your
hands on it?

For similar reasons I am uncomfortable with the notion of using
Ubuntu as a main server OS. Their stated purpose and goal is to
promote ease of use over security and correctness. Debian's
stated purpose and goals are the opposite. Numerous examples of
the actual implementation of these policies can be found in the
final decisions taken in their respective bug trackers, justified
as such.


I've been maintaining Debian servers for years, and if there's
one thing I've learned it is not to try and out-smart the system
by installing gratuitous upgrades, custom modifications, or
bypassing the apt/dpkg system (if at all possible).


regards,
Hamish