[OpenAFS] Wich Linux distribution?

[ted creedon]

Suse 9.x 2.4 kernel afs 1.2.11 works well here, experimenting with 2.6
kernel & latest afs release.

SuSe uses Heimdal which is slightly different than MIT kerberos.

-----Original Message-----
From: openafs-info-admin@openafs.org =
[mailto:openafs-info-admin@openafs.org]
On Behalf Of Lars Schimmer
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:11 AM
Cc: openafs-info@openafs.org
Subject: Re: [OpenAFS] Wich Linux distribution?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

dom.toretto@pandora.be schrieb:
| Hello Everybody,
|
| Thx for the respons in previous posts, but what I want to know is wich
distribution of Linux is the best to implement an OpenAFS system?
| I already tried Slackware and Gentoo, but both off them are not the=20
| best
distributions for OpenAFS.
| Who has good experiences with OpenAFS on Linux with a 2.4.26 kernel?

*here*

| And wich distribution did you use?

Best distribution is somewhat misleading.
It always depend on your work and knowledge. For OpenAFS it seems to be
vital, to get the latest stable "nearly fast" and the latest unstable
"nearby".
So best distribution would be the one in which you can built your own
OpenAFS from source without any flaws.

*MY point of view follows*

1. I dislike SuSe at all. And OpenAFS is special on SuSe, because they =
alway
have got heavy patches everywhere I assume. Hard to get updates.
2. Gentoo - I don't like to built every package on my system and as I
learned today, latest OpenAFS packages only with some kind of hack =
available
(stable and
unstable)
3. RedHat <9.x: official builds available, source for 1.3.xx, but old =
system
4. Fedora Core- No official builds for 1.3.xx, but inofficial over the =
net.
For me in my network not nice, because after 6-12 month NO more updates
(that not nice for long run servers), and because of bleeding edge
development always some flaws in the packages....
5. Debian - My choice. You can run stable (woody), very old, very =
stable,
but only OpenAFS 1.2.13. I run Sarge (the "new"-"will-be" stable" with
pinning, so some packages from experimental on my system. For me, apt is
better than rpm (or apt for rpm), it solves the dependencies on its own. =
For
OpenAFS you need the experimental sources, there are 1.3.74 packages. =
Yes, a
bit older, but the maintainer has made 1.3.79 and is NOT happy with it, =
so I
built the 1.3.79 from the maintainers source and put them on my ftp as
unofficial builts, and I'm happy with them till now with 2.6.10 as a =
full
OpenAFS Server (File&Database) and Client.
1.3.74 works under 2.4.27 flawless for me, although I built my own =
kernel
without most of the modules.
For me the best point that speaks for debian is the support. If you had
setup woody on your server 4 years ago, you were still running the same
configuration with secure package, because security updates are =
available
for a long time. And there are lots of backports available for newer
packages.
E.G. set up a server now with sarge, and you know, in 3 years there are
still security updates for this server, there are no updates that breaks =
the
configuration or change anything big, and at least, you are able to =
install
up to date versions with backports.

More I haven't been in contact with.
Ok, MacOS-X, but thats not on your mind, I assume, although IRIX or =
HP-UX.

| THX
|
| Greetz

Cya
Lars
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
Technische Universit=E4t Braunschweig, Institut f=FCr Computergraphik
Tel.: +49 531 391-2109            E-Mail: schimmer@cg.cs.tu-bs.de
PGP-Key-ID: 0xB87A0E03


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCNrTJVguzrLh6DgMRAqjDAKCtpygZS18aCewNCfKDW4NM+Uut/QCfVXs2
hV2JgiatCLXy0NEqBab/EHk=3D
=3Dlj7l
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
OpenAFS-info mailing list
OpenAFS-info@openafs.org
https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info