Xen Orchestra on Ubuntu 15.10 - Complete installation instructions
-
I am trying to do this using Ubuntu 14.04.3 but I get Cannot GET /
xo@xo:~/xo-server$ sudo npm start > [email protected] start /home/xo/xo-server > node bin/xo-server app-conf /home/xo/xo-server/config.json +0ms app-conf /home/xo/xo-server/.xo-server.yaml +3ms xo:main Configuration loaded. +13ms xo:main Web server listening on http://[::]:80 +9ms xo:perf blocked for 209ms +265ms -
Why such an old Ubuntu version? I'm surprised there are issues, but still, that's old.
-
What Node.js version do you have installed?
-
@scottalanmiller Because it's the lastest LTS release. Isn't using LTS best practice?
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller Because it's the lastest LTS release. Isn't using LTS best practice?
No, it's a bad practice. Using something with "long term support" is a good practice, but with Ubuntu it is just a naming thing for marketing purposes. Even Canonical themselves do not recognize it as an LTS. It's just letters that they slap on every fourth release to make it sound like an enterprise product like RHEL. It isn't. Ubuntu is a rolling release will full support only for the latest build. So sticking to LTS is just "not updating" in this case. One of the many reasons that Ubuntu isn't that good. It's not "bad", but it isn't up to par.
Ubuntu is like Fedora, you always want to be on the latest unless there is a compatibility issue. You would never intentionally use an LTS release unless you are doing something like MongoDB which only releases for certain versions. And the answer there is not to use Ubuntu but to use CentOS which is kept up to date.
If you want a true LTS, Ubuntu is not an option for you. RHEL and SLES are the only enterprise long term support options in the Linux world.
-
So your idea of sticking to a long term supported product is sound, it just doesn't apply to Ubuntu where LTS doesn't actually mean it is getting long term support.
-
Does Long Term Support even matter though? Is that for a situation where you can't upgrade the OS because of some limitation of the software running on top of it?
Assuming the software will run on the latest, isn't that really the only place to be, support and patch wise?
-
@Dashrender said:
Does Long Term Support even matter though? Is that for a situation where you can't upgrade the OS because of some limitation of the software running on top of it?
Assuming the software will run on the latest, isn't that really the only place to be, support and patch wise?
So that's an interesting thought and I lean the way that you are thinking. But you can't guarantee forward compatibility in all cases. So I'd say "it depends." For most things, especially desktops, web apps and non-critical systems, I would go for "rolling releases" like Fedora and OpenSuse Tumbleweed or Ubuntu "current release" to make sure that I was always completely up to date. This eliminates a lot of migration risk and deprecation risk down the road.
But when running apps that needs serious stability, long term testing and vendor support, it is often best to choose CentOS or OpenSuse Leap with super long, very stable release cycles and hard core support so that you can be sure that everything is going to work.
-
So I am going to try again with the latest version of Ubuntu Server, or Debian.
-
or should I try CentOS 7? Everything else I run is on CentOS 7.....
-
Since you are at the point of "trying", I would definitely do CentOS 7.
-
@scottalanmiller You are a bit of a CentOS fanboy, and you made me one too! =P
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Does Long Term Support even matter though? Is that for a situation where you can't upgrade the OS because of some limitation of the software running on top of it?
Assuming the software will run on the latest, isn't that really the only place to be, support and patch wise?
So that's an interesting thought and I lean the way that you are thinking. But you can't guarantee forward compatibility in all cases. So I'd say "it depends." For most things, especially desktops, web apps and non-critical systems, I would go for "rolling releases" like Fedora and OpenSuse Tumbleweed or Ubuntu "current release" to make sure that I was always completely up to date. This eliminates a lot of migration risk and deprecation risk down the road.
But when running apps that needs serious stability, long term testing and vendor support, it is often best to choose CentOS or OpenSuse Leap with super long, very stable release cycles and hard core support so that you can be sure that everything is going to work.
So we basically said the same thing - I did put the assuming the software will run on the latest bit in there. Of course if the software won't run on the latest, you need to stay on the version you're at.
-
You have to uncommend mounts! =/
-
I must be missing something, because I am having issues with every distro I use.....
-
npm ERR! Linux 3.10.0-327.el7.x86_64 npm ERR! argv "/usr/local/bin/node" "/usr/local/bin/npm" "start" npm ERR! node v5.4.0 npm ERR! npm v3.3.12 npm ERR! code ELIFECYCLE npm ERR! [email protected] start: `node bin/xo-server` npm ERR! Exit status 1 npm ERR! npm ERR! Failed at the [email protected] start script 'node bin/xo-server'. npm ERR! Make sure you have the latest version of node.js and npm installed. npm ERR! If you do, this is most likely a problem with the xo-server package, npm ERR! not with npm itself. npm ERR! Tell the author that this fails on your system: npm ERR! node bin/xo-server npm ERR! You can get their info via: npm ERR! npm owner ls xo-server npm ERR! There is likely additional logging output above. -
Remember when I asked what node version you were installing? That looks like Node 5. I thought XO could only work with Node 4.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
What Node.js version do you have installed?
There was the question ^^^^
I never saw a response. We could have tracked this down sooner
You can't just use the Node that comes with the distro. Use NVM and control the Node version. -
@scottalanmiller said:
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller Because it's the lastest LTS release. Isn't using LTS best practice?
No, it's a bad practice. Using something with "long term support" is a good practice, but with Ubuntu it is just a naming thing for marketing purposes. Even Canonical themselves do not recognize it as an LTS. It's just letters that they slap on every fourth release to make it sound like an enterprise product like RHEL. It isn't. Ubuntu is a rolling release will full support only for the latest build. So sticking to LTS is just "not updating" in this case. One of the many reasons that Ubuntu isn't that good. It's not "bad", but it isn't up to par.
Ubuntu is like Fedora, you always want to be on the latest unless there is a compatibility issue. You would never intentionally use an LTS release unless you are doing something like MongoDB which only releases for certain versions. And the answer there is not to use Ubuntu but to use CentOS which is kept up to date.
If you want a true LTS, Ubuntu is not an option for you. RHEL and SLES are the only enterprise long term support options in the Linux world.
@scottalanmiller Why aren't ubuntu LTS releases trully considered as having long term support? I usually use Centos but I do have several Ubuntu LTS boxes and from their documentation they appear as having long term support.
-
@Romo said:
@scottalanmiller Why aren't ubuntu LTS releases trully considered as having long term support? I usually use Centos but I do have several Ubuntu LTS boxes and from their documentation they appear as having long term support.
Because Long Term Support suggests that when things break, they fix them and provide support. But Canonical doesn't do that. If things really break they tell their LTS clients to upgrade to the latest non-LTS release to continue getting support. True LTS support never requires "going to the non-LTS release" to continue getting support. The label LTS and their "support marketing timelines" are just made up marketing.
