1 |
How about option #3: Build a hard drive (or hard drive set) locally for |
2 |
the system and ship them to be installed? |
3 |
|
4 |
I think that would give you the best of both of your previous options. |
5 |
Granted, you'd have to go through export compliance stuff and all that, |
6 |
but it might be worth the extra hassle. |
7 |
|
8 |
Just a thought. |
9 |
|
10 |
Ben |
11 |
|
12 |
Collin Starkweather wrote: |
13 |
> I have a server that is in need of a significant update, but it's |
14 |
> proving a challenge. I have a big picture question, then provide some |
15 |
> details below. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> (I originally thought the gentoo-admin list would be the best place to |
18 |
> ask this, but based on the stats, it seems to be relatively inactive. |
19 |
> Let me know if there is a better list to ask the question on.) |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Please excuse the length of the question, but as you can see, there are |
22 |
> a variety of variables in play. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> The Big Picture |
25 |
> --------------- |
26 |
> |
27 |
> The server has not been updated since late 2005 or so. It just runs |
28 |
> Apache, mod_perl, and an application server. So far, it has just hummed |
29 |
> along doing its work without complaint, solid as a rock, which is why no |
30 |
> one has bothered with it. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> As you doubtless know, if you miss a couple of upgrade cycles with |
33 |
> Gentoo, there can be (and has been) breakage when trying to emerge -u |
34 |
> world. |
35 |
> |
36 |
> There are two identical drives, and I've mirrored (manually, not RAID) |
37 |
> one onto the other. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> The challenge is that the box is in the U.S. and I live in China. There |
40 |
> is no one there who can administer it; however, if something goes really |
41 |
> wrong, someone can just swap the drives and reboot. The key factor is |
42 |
> that I want this to be as low-risk as possible since swapping the drives |
43 |
> is about the extent of on-site support available. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> The big picture question: Would it (1) be simpler and easier to rebuild |
46 |
> from scratch on the redundant drive, or (2) is it simpler and easier to |
47 |
> deal with the current issues updating from 2005.0 and a 2.4.x kernel? |
48 |
> |
49 |
> The Details |
50 |
> ----------- |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Option (1): Rebuilding on the Redundant Drive |
53 |
> |
54 |
> Pros -- It seems this would be the easiest way to do things, and I get a |
55 |
> fresh kernel and build. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> Cons -- If I rebuild on the redundant drive, I lose the ability to swap |
58 |
> drives if there is breakage. Also, the application server (Apache |
59 |
> Pagekit) is solid as a rock, but a real bitch to configure. Last time I |
60 |
> tried to upgrade Pagekit, due to Apache versioning issues, configuration |
61 |
> changes, etc., it took me a full weekend. Not fun. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> Option (2): Upgrading from 2005.0 |
64 |
> |
65 |
> Pros -- Perhaps less risky (advice on this would be appreciated!) and I |
66 |
> maintain another drive I can use to compare configurations, selectively |
67 |
> roll things back, etc. |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Cons -- The gory details. When I did an emerge --sync, the |
70 |
> /etc/make.profile symlink broke. It used to point at |
71 |
> |
72 |
> /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4 |
73 |
> |
74 |
> which no longer exists, I suppose since the 2.4.x kernels seem to no |
75 |
> longer be supported. |
76 |
> |
77 |
> So the questions that arise are: |
78 |
> |
79 |
> 1) Would it be less risky to upgrade from 2005.0 to 2007.0 than rebuild |
80 |
> from scratch on the redundant drive? |
81 |
> 2) What is no-nptl? I don't know why the old portage profile was |
82 |
> /usr/portage/.../no-nptl. It seems to have something to do with |
83 |
> glibc-2.4. Do I still need it? Or can I just point /etc/make.profile |
84 |
> at /usr/portage/.../2007.0? |
85 |
> 3) I pointed /etc/make.profile at /usr/portage/.../2007.0, and tried |
86 |
> emerge -pu world. I was told that mail-mta/qmail no longer existed and |
87 |
> is required by sudo (?!?) which is required by libapreq2. Perhaps |
88 |
> mail-mta/netqmail is the new qmail? Anyway, this gives me the |
89 |
> impression that there are deep dependencies that may have changed |
90 |
> significantly. Is this what you would (subjectively) characterize as a |
91 |
> bad sign? |
92 |
> 4) What would be the best order of operations? emerge -u world, then |
93 |
> update the kernel, or update the kernel, then emerge -u world? |
94 |
> 5) 2008.0 is due on March 17. Is it worthwhile putting off the upgrade |
95 |
> for 2008.0? I wouldn't want to deal with two difficult upgrades if |
96 |
> there is breakage between 2007.0 and 2008.0. |
97 |
> |
98 |
> Thanks in advance, |
99 |
> |
100 |
> -Collin |
101 |
> |
102 |
|
103 |
|
104 |
-- |
105 |
gentoo-server@l.g.o mailing list |