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

[Alex Mandel]

Hamish wrote:
>> 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
> 

Thanks for the feedback everyone, we found a reasonable compromise that
takes little to no time. The default will remain ext3 for large vms that
intend to hold large files, we will have a small 10G ext3 partition for
the OS and the rest will be a separate mount point XFS.
This will be implemented on Backup and on Download(when we get to that),
and other VMs if the need is identified.

In fact it's now done. So we are ready to move ahead with configuration
of Wiki, Secure and Backup. The XFS volume in backup is /dev/vdb and
will need to be mounted - suggestions for mount options are welcome.

Thanks,
Alex