-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Hi,
So, this is not an announcement of any intent to change anything, I just want to get an idea of how people feel about two things we could, perhaps, change in the future:
1. ZWS to Apache on the web server 2. Solaris to FreeBSD on login servers
#2 depends on #1, so it seems sensible to discuss both together.
I don't have any strong opinion about either of these myself, but I would like to hear what users think.
ZWS to Apache:
I know it annoyed people when we moved from Apache to ZWS initially, because rewrite rules had to be redone, some .htaccess stuff stopped working, etc. At the time we were using mod_suphp for per-user (suexec) PHP scripts, and it was extremely inefficient; the system spent most of its time doing nothing. ZWS allowed us to fix the problem cheaply (no new hardware required), and I think for most users it worked just the same.
Since then, two things have changed: firstly, Apache with mod_fcgid now has decent FastCGI support, and with only a little work could be made to support suexec PHP as well. Secondly, ZWS is now in maintenance, and won't see any further development (so it might be better to switch now, rather than wait until one month before ZWS support ends entirely and be forced to switch).
With that in mind, it makes sense to consider moving back to Apache. The main downside is that rewrite rules would have to be converted back to Apache format (mod_rewrite). OTOH, .htaccess features missing from ZWS would be available again (I don't know if anyone actually needs this, but I believe at least a few users have complained about missing features.)
Solaris to FreeBSD:
Of the two changes, I think this one would actually be the less disruptive. For users, nearly everything would stay the same: we already provide the GNU userland ('ls', etc) by default (and would continue to do so) and the third-party software in /opt/ts would be identical, as would cronie, SGE, Perl/Python/..., etc.
Software-wise, since nothing would really change, I don't see any particular advantages for users. Disadvantages: 'ps -eaf' would stop working ;-) and anyone with locally-compiled software (C/C++, or XS Perl modules, etc.) would need to recompile them.
For us (admins), the main advantage is reduced maintenance overhead: FreeBSD releases a new minor version about once a year, and supports each for 2 years; each release branch only gets very infrequent updates for security or errata. In comparison, there is a new Solaris update every 6 months, and during yesterday's maintenance we installed 358 (!) separate patches. Oracle doesn't provide a security-updates-only release, and it's difficult to mix-and-match patches (e.g. to only get security patches).
This doesn't directly affect users, but fewer OS changes should lead to less lengthy / disruptive maintenance and less frequent reboots. OTOH, I don't know if this has a noticeable impact on users at the moment, and the previous maintenance was the first for ~170 days.
- river.
hi river
i know we have talkedabout this before, but for the benefit of other users, let me ask the obvious question: why FreeBSD and not Linux?
-- daniel
On 07.06.2011 04:04, River Tarnell wrote:
Hi,
So, this is not an announcement of any intent to change anything, I just want to get an idea of how people feel about two things we could, perhaps, change in the future:
- ZWS to Apache on the web server
- Solaris to FreeBSD on login servers
#2 depends on #1, so it seems sensible to discuss both together.
I don't have any strong opinion about either of these myself, but I would like to hear what users think.
ZWS to Apache:
I know it annoyed people when we moved from Apache to ZWS initially, because rewrite rules had to be redone, some .htaccess stuff stopped working, etc. At the time we were using mod_suphp for per-user (suexec) PHP scripts, and it was extremely inefficient; the system spent most of its time doing nothing. ZWS allowed us to fix the problem cheaply (no new hardware required), and I think for most users it worked just the same.
Since then, two things have changed: firstly, Apache with mod_fcgid now has decent FastCGI support, and with only a little work could be made to support suexec PHP as well. Secondly, ZWS is now in maintenance, and won't see any further development (so it might be better to switch now, rather than wait until one month before ZWS support ends entirely and be forced to switch).
With that in mind, it makes sense to consider moving back to Apache. The main downside is that rewrite rules would have to be converted back to Apache format (mod_rewrite). OTOH, .htaccess features missing from ZWS would be available again (I don't know if anyone actually needs this, but I believe at least a few users have complained about missing features.)
Solaris to FreeBSD:
Of the two changes, I think this one would actually be the less disruptive. For users, nearly everything would stay the same: we already provide the GNU userland ('ls', etc) by default (and would continue to do so) and the third-party software in /opt/ts would be identical, as would cronie, SGE, Perl/Python/..., etc.
Software-wise, since nothing would really change, I don't see any particular advantages for users. Disadvantages: 'ps -eaf' would stop working ;-) and anyone with locally-compiled software (C/C++, or XS Perl modules, etc.) would need to recompile them.
For us (admins), the main advantage is reduced maintenance overhead: FreeBSD releases a new minor version about once a year, and supports each for 2 years; each release branch only gets very infrequent updates for security or errata. In comparison, there is a new Solaris update every 6 months, and during yesterday's maintenance we installed 358 (!) separate patches. Oracle doesn't provide a security-updates-only release, and it's difficult to mix-and-match patches (e.g. to only get security patches).
This doesn't directly affect users, but fewer OS changes should lead to less lengthy / disruptive maintenance and less frequent reboots. OTOH, I don't know if this has a noticeable impact on users at the moment, and the previous maintenance was the first for ~170 days.
- river.
_______________________________________________ Toolserver-l mailing list (Toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org) https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/toolserver-l Posting guidelines for this list: https://wiki.toolserver.org/view/Mailing_list_etiquette
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Kinzler:
why FreeBSD and not Linux?
Why Linux and not FreeBSD, or Solaris, or OpenServer, or MP-RAS, or ...? I've asked this many times in the past (usually when someone says "I want Linux") and never had a real answer that I can remember.[0]
The way I see it, choice of operating system has very little impact on users because users don't, generally, interact with the operating system. There are a few specific cases which make a difference (I can think of cron, 'ps' and top/prstat), but apart from that, the software users actually use is the stuff in /opt/ts, which is independent of operating system.[1]
For servers other than login servers (like databases) there are additional considerations, since those make a lot more use of OS features, like storage management. I've previously considered and rejected FreeBSD for use as a database server (in favour of staying with Solaris + VxVM).
To me, FreeBSD seems to be an ideal candidate for a platform to layer /opt/ts on top of: it provides a base operating system which is reliable, has a good feature set in areas which only the OS can provide (e.g. DTrace, ZFS, auditing), and it's simple to install and maintain.
- river.
[0] I know some people are concerned about use of proprietary software on the Toolserver, but that's a separate issue, and in any case FreeBSD and Linux are equally open source.
[1] This assumes that all the software we provide works on FreeBSD, of course. I haven't verified this, because we provide ~650 packages and it would take many hours, so there's no point doing it unless we actually decide to change OS. However, I don't foresee any problems.
On 07/06/2011 4:49 AM, River Tarnell wrote:
Why Linux and not FreeBSD, or Solaris, or OpenServer, or MP-RAS, or ...? I've asked this many times in the past (usually when someone says "I want Linux") and never had a real answer that I can remember.[0]
Availability of expertise.
Just here at Ubisoft, for instance, there are about 25 Linux sysadmins (ranging from intermediate to guru-level). Of all of us, there are only five that have Solaris or *BSD experience, and only *two* who have both.
Whatever caused this originally, Linux ended up with a much bigger mindshare than the BSD did. You'll find more users and sysadmins with CentOS or Ubuntu experience than all other unices combined once we old farts start retiring.
-- Coren / Marc
toolserver-l@lists.wikimedia.org