Unsolved Fedora Server for production use?
-
Yes, definitely. It would not be my first choice for most systems, I'd stick to CentOS, but it is very stable and solid on its own and no reason not to run it when warranted.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
Yes, definitely. It would not be my first choice for most systems, I'd stick to CentOS, but it is very stable and solid on its own and no reason not to run it when warranted.
Great, thanks. Was exactly what I thought: Not my first choice, but still a good one.
Just thought about another requirement (mono and webserver for ASP.NET), but this should do fine too:
http://www.inprose.com/sv/articles/10-enable-aspnet-support-in-fedora-linux.html -
Interesting: Fedora 25 starts to panic with RAM < 512MB at the beginning of the kernel init phase, even in text mode. Just had a look at the manual which clearly says that Fedora requires 1GB of RAM.
Looks like I'm out of luck and have to stick to Ubuntu / Debian.
-
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
Interesting: Fedora 25 starts to panic with RAM < 512MB at the beginning of the kernel init phase, even in text mode. Just had a look at the manual which clearly says that Fedora requires 1GB of RAM.
Looks like I'm out of luck and have to stick to Ubuntu / Debian.
That's super weird. I've not tried to compress it that far, but that's ridiculous.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
Interesting: Fedora 25 starts to panic with RAM < 512MB at the beginning of the kernel init phase, even in text mode. Just had a look at the manual which clearly says that Fedora requires 1GB of RAM.
Looks like I'm out of luck and have to stick to Ubuntu / Debian.
That's super weird. I've not tried to compress it that far, but that's ridiculous.
Yeah, seems to be a hard constraint of some sort. They are probably loading tons of hard compiled kernel drivers. Maybe some weird initrd setup, large ramdisks (I don't think so, that's more in the userland area). Who knows
-
Just googled for "fedora 256MB" and found this: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=291559
Looks like there are workarounds, but "should work" is not what I'm looking for.
-
That's what testing is for
-
It's only a memory check, not an actual technical issue. I would go ahead with it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
It's only a memory check, not an actual technical issue. I would go ahead with it.
A check in the kernel phase? It happens right after choosing the kernel command line.
-
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
It's only a memory check, not an actual technical issue. I would go ahead with it.
A check in the kernel phase? It happens right after choosing the kernel command line.
It has to be in the installer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
It's only a memory check, not an actual technical issue. I would go ahead with it.
A check in the kernel phase? It happens right after choosing the kernel command line.
It has to be in the installer.
That's what I thought. So the kernel panic is likely caused by something else.
-
Raised the VMs memory to 1GB, did a text mode install, as suggested.
But the "blank" system alone is already using 256MB of RAM. There's some kind of management webserver installed and lots of other processes running in the background.
-
This is going to be one of these days...
Currently installing Ubuntu 16.04.1 using the ~700MB server ISO. It won't find the installation source mount point when I try to run the machine with just 256MB...
Works fine with 512MB.
-
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
Raised the VMs memory to 1GB, did a text mode install, as suggested.
But the "blank" system alone is already using 256MB of RAM. There's some kind of management webserver installed and lots of other processes running in the background.
Cockpit. You have to "leanify" Fedora.
-
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
This is going to be one of these days...
Currently installing Ubuntu 16.04.1 using the ~700MB server ISO. It won't find the installation source mount point when I try to run the machine with just 256MB...
Works fine with 512MB.
Why an old version? Current has the best chance of success and for production use, support is critical so that should rule out the older versions that are limited support.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
This is going to be one of these days...
Currently installing Ubuntu 16.04.1 using the ~700MB server ISO. It won't find the installation source mount point when I try to run the machine with just 256MB...
Works fine with 512MB.
Why an old version? Current has the best chance of success and for production use, support is critical so that should rule out the older versions that are limited support.
Because it's the current stable LTS release.
-
Ubuntu 16.04.1, not yet updated. Looks way better.
-
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
@scottalanmiller said in Fedora Server for production use?:
@thwr said in Fedora Server for production use?:
This is going to be one of these days...
Currently installing Ubuntu 16.04.1 using the ~700MB server ISO. It won't find the installation source mount point when I try to run the machine with just 256MB...
Works fine with 512MB.
Why an old version? Current has the best chance of success and for production use, support is critical so that should rule out the older versions that are limited support.
Because it's the current stable LTS release.
That's not a reason. LTS is not the fully supported product from Canonical. There is nothing current about 16.04. 16.10 is the only fully supported Ubuntu product today. If this is for production, you need support. Don't skip support just to get an LTS moniker. LTS is three letters, it is not a support agreement.
-
You're right. Just had the ISO here and didn't thought about the 16.10 release.
-
The trick in the wording is that 16.04 is "partial" support for two years, while "current" gets full support for 6-9 months. So for full support, it's a twice a year release process. If limited or partial support (security stuff gets patched, they will help when stuff is easy) is enough, LTS can suffice. But since current gets total support (including bugs you find, stability issues and such that are not covered with LTS) and you get the latest technology, it's a win/win.
