| Author |
RH 8.0 not ready for corporate environment
|
|
|
| installed RH 8.0 on a test server at home. It proved to be very unstable, and would lock up frequently. Also proved to be a hog on resources. And cricket would not work on it -- looked like some incompatibility issue with PERL of all things. Moral of the story: believe the saying that a x.0 release of RH should never be installed on a live box  | |
| namrak 2002-10-28, 2:05 pm |
| Thanks for the warning Freak. Are you going to keep trying to work with it or switch back to a more stable version? Will have to set up a test system when I eventually get around to installing Red Hat 8. Who knows though, 8.1 may come up by then. Cheers.  | |
| Boulware5 2002-10-28, 2:07 pm |
| Go with Slackware | |
|
| sure thing
I have a server on my desk that is a test box for Linux-based OS. It is still running 8.0 and I intend on working with it and seeing if I can alleviate some of the problems. However, I am not all that good with Linux I must admit, so maybe some of the issues can be traced back to the user  | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Boulware5
Go with Slackware
sorry, bud, we're a RH shop... | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-10-28, 3:01 pm |
| Heh heh. Slack rules. Although I agree, have had a few probs with RH 8.0. Is a bit more trouble out of the box than previous releases had been. You will need to play with it a bit more, but the eye-candy is pretty cool looking. | |
|
| the thing is: why do I need eye candy in Linux? I already have MS for that. I want fast, bullet-proof OS that can run on crappy HW | |
|
| I dunno, I think bluecurve is overhyped... but I prolly should reserve judgement since I havent try to do much with it.
desktop anyone? | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-10-28, 3:07 pm |
| True enough, but I think RH is trying to make it pretty for marketing puproses. When you show an operating environent off or try to sell it to some management type dudes, pretty pictures doesn't hurt I reckon. But I agree, I'd rather stability than eye-candy any day. When I first fired up KDE in psyche, there were some problems that I had to fix by hand. To everyone else this means: unless you have a reason to upgrade . . . DON'T! | |
| Boulware5 2002-10-28, 3:13 pm |
| I don't need/want eye candy personally. That is why I haven't upgraded to XP (staying with 2000). And haven't gone with RH 8.0 (staying with Slackware 8.0) | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-10-28, 3:16 pm |
| I usually get the newer distros to play around with them, but for my personal use, I rarely bother with GUIs unless I am doing something that requires them. As for as Win2K/XP, I have not seen any real differences (reminds me of the Win95/98 upgrade). | |
| ccieToBe 2002-10-28, 8:08 pm |
| I think we're bringing freak closer to the dark side every day :-)
I can see where it makes sense to standardize on a single Linux distro. I know I've basically done the same sort of thing in my production environments - FreeBSD generally goes on the more beefy hardware and OpenBSD generally does the embedded stuff. So far Linux is confined to the desktop.
I haven't installed 8.0 yet. Mostly because 7.3 works well for me and I've heard of a lot of problems with 8.0. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by ccieToBe
I think we're bringing freak closer to the dark side every day :-)
I have so many Linux servers that I am responsible for -- what a joke -- that I have to get with the program. It's not pretty everyday, and my thanks go to Chris at my work who is a Linux Guru the likes of which I had not seen since Mr. Linux Guy.
I am still very much an MS guy, but I also try to stay open minded and try to get the best tool for the task. It so happens that Linux often happens to be the right tool these days.
You should have seen how p.o.'ed I was the other day trying to install Cricket on RH 8.0! I had to go outside and cool down or I was goin to start throwing servers around | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-10-29, 6:10 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
You should have seen how p.o.'ed I was the other day trying to install Cricket on RH 8.0! I had to go outside and cool down or I was goin to start throwing servers around
LOL! Relax, dude, we've all been there! | |
|
| I gotta tell you. I see a lot of wonderful things about Linux. I also see a lot of misery and a lot of frustration. What keeps reeling me back is the flexibility of the OS... and the fact that I get paid to take care of those boxes | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-10-29, 10:40 am |
| Once you get the hang of it, it becomes a lot easier, but dealing with them on a constant basis helps. Linux, although it has its faults, is probably the most flexible OS around. | |
| neuralfx 2002-10-30, 3:08 pm |
| hm well not to be the black sheep, but .. I have RH8.0 up and running for awhile now on a dual AMD system (tyan s2460 board) that has been running fast and stable .. I compiled php/apache/mysql from source and the webserver seems to be running ok, granted i'm not doing anything major on it, but tis running and host a small 'intra-home' site heh. And of course Tux Racer runs smooth! Have you been updating via RHN? ..
-neural | |
| ccieToBe 2002-10-31, 12:13 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by neuralfx
And of course Tux Racer runs smooth!
Between Tux Racer, xbill and tron you're all set. What else is there? | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-11-01, 6:12 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by neuralfx
hm well not to be the black sheep, but .. I have RH8.0 up and running for awhile now on a dual AMD system (tyan s2460 board) that has been running fast and stable .. I compiled php/apache/mysql from source and the webserver seems to be running ok, granted i'm not doing anything major on it, but tis running and host a small 'intra-home' site heh. And of course Tux Racer runs smooth! Have you been updating via RHN? ..
-neural
I have a RH 8.0 server (actually a secdond rate PC) that I am using as the pre-production web server. We test our changes there before going live with them. No problems so far, butr I notices that when firing up the GUI on another box that I had upgraded there were a number of tweaks that I had to go through to make thing work OK. | |
|
|
| freak 2002-11-01, 12:20 pm |
| cool, thanks for the info. I am going to look into that. | |
| Margus 2002-11-01, 7:11 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
the thing is: why do I need eye candy in Linux? I already have MS for that. I want fast, bullet-proof OS that can run on crappy HW
Im newcomer to RHL (7.3) but it seems to me that its even slower than MS windows.
I have 666Mhz PIII with 384 MB ram.
MS Windows gets slow when I install about 15-20 programs but rh7.3 seems to be slow from the start...
Maybe its because I chose most of the options during install? | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-11-01, 7:35 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Margus
Im newcomer to RHL (7.3) but it seems to me that its even slower than MS windows.
I have 666Mhz PIII with 384 MB ram.
MS Windows gets slow when I install about 15-20 programs but rh7.3 seems to be slow from the start...
Maybe its because I chose most of the options during install?
OK, let me let you in on a little prob I once had with RH 7.2 and why some people regard RH as a distro that does too much "hand-holding". I was so impressed when first intstalling RH 7.2 that I just started clicking "next" to whatever the OS presented to me without really looking at what it was telling me (apparently I was in 'Microsoft mode' ). I noticed that as I began using the OS, it was _extremely_ slow and I heard my HDD doing a *lot* of grinding. I decided to do the install again and pay more attention. Click . . . click . . . clcick . . . HOLY FECES!!! The installer "auto-detected" 16 MB of RAM. I had only 4 MB of RAM. Whereas beofre I clicked 'next', now I adjusted it to the appropriate value. Chedk to see if a similar problem has occured to you. Excessive paging can do this, it may be your problem. The Linux install routines have recently gotten much betetr than in the oast, but they are still light years behind MS as far as hardware detection goes atleast in many areas. Check that you specified all the parameters correctly instead of agreeing with whatever your installer may have first suggested. I.e., know your hardware.
If this doesn't srtike any chords, let me know and we can try to work it out. | |
| Margus 2002-11-01, 7:39 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
HOLY FECES!!! The installer "auto-detected" 16 MB of RAM. I had only 4 MB of RAM. Whereas beofre I clicked 'next', now I adjusted it to the appropriate value. Chedk to see if a similar problem has occured to you. Excessive paging can do this, it may be your problem.
How do I see those hardware settings in Linux?
(and how can I connect to internet from Linux? --> i have roadrunner hispeed cable service) | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-11-01, 7:44 pm |
| Boot into KDE and look at your hardware broswer (under System Settings I think). You can also browse your /proc filesystem and get the lowdown on what yous system is doing, memory and hardware wise.
For net access, set up your hostname, /etc/resolv.conf files and make sure your interface has been configured properly. | |
| tohrt 2002-11-03, 10:43 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
I usually get the newer distros to play around with them, but for my personal use, I rarely bother with GUIs unless I am doing something that requires them. As for as Win2K/XP, I have not seen any real differences (reminds me of the Win95/98 upgrade).
In response to Win2k - XP differences
From a support standpoint, there are imense differences. XP will not support near all the software or hardware that 2k will. The drivers are a major issue. 3rd party utilities are a major issue. XP uses much more system resources than 2k does. Even after going into services & shutting down all the un-needed stuff running from the default install. The default XP GUI is buggy & crash proned. Things aren't in the same place as 2k. It is quite different. I don't care for it. | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-11-03, 11:12 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by tohrt
In response to Win2k - XP differences
From a support standpoint, there are imense differences. XP will not support near all the software or hardware that 2k will. The drivers are a major issue. 3rd party utilities are a major issue. XP uses much more system resources than 2k does. Even after going into services & shutting down all the un-needed stuff running from the default install. The default XP GUI is buggy & crash proned. Things aren't in the same place as 2k. It is quite different. I don't care for it.
Well, I agree with that much, but I was thinking more in terms of functionality . . . I haven't tried any odd drivers with XP, and I know that things are in different places (that annoyed me a bit) and the default screen looked more cartoonish, but I was thinking in terms of "What real improvements have I noticed in XP that I thought could have been improved in 2K?". I have noticed nothing substantially different in that area. | |
| ccieToBe 2002-11-03, 2:15 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Linux Guy
The installer "auto-detected" 16 MB of RAM. I had only 4 MB of RAM.
Please tell me you had 4MB of video card RAM, not 4MB of system RAM. Even my embedded stuff has way more then 4MB of system RAM | |
| ccieToBe 2002-11-03, 2:23 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by Margus
Im newcomer to RHL (7.3) but it seems to me that its even slower than MS windows.
I have 666Mhz PIII with 384 MB ram.
MS Windows gets slow when I install about 15-20 programs but rh7.3 seems to be slow from the start...
Maybe its because I chose most of the options during install?
As efficient as Linux itself is, KDE and Gnome are fairly large. That in itself will erase a lot of the perceived performance difference when you're running one of these apps. What version of Windows are you comparing to? Do you mean overall speed, or speed when you're doing video card intensive stuff? A lot of times Linux will load a much more generic video card driver then is optimal. My laptop has a Geforce2Go which runs UT smoothly in Windows. A default install of RH 7.3 has a hard time even running Tux Racer before I load the Nvidia drivers. | |
| Margus 2002-11-03, 5:21 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by tohrt
In response to Win2k - XP differences
From a support standpoint, there are imense differences. XP will not support near all the software or hardware that 2k will. The drivers are a major issue. 3rd party utilities are a major issue. XP uses much more system resources than 2k does. Even after going into services & shutting down all the un-needed stuff running from the default install. The default XP GUI is buggy & crash proned. Things aren't in the same place as 2k. It is quite different. I don't care for it.
Well I on the other hand don't like 2000 much -->
In winXP pro everything is built in and simple -- my sound, cablemodem, printer are detected (and even configured) almost automatically,
While in 2000 pro I dont have drivers for printer and sound.
Tell me what u want but if they could XP running a little bit faster (and more reliable) its much better OS (for me) than 2K ever will. | |
| Margus 2002-11-03, 5:25 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by ccieToBe
As efficient as Linux itself is, KDE and Gnome are fairly large. That in itself will erase a lot of the perceived performance difference when you're running one of these apps. What version of Windows are you comparing to? Do you mean overall speed, or speed when you're doing video card intensive stuff? A lot of times Linux will load a much more generic video card driver then is optimal. My laptop has a Geforce2Go which runs UT smoothly in Windows. A default install of RH 7.3 has a hard time even running Tux Racer before I load the Nvidia drivers.
I have both Gnome & KDE installed (I think)
Im mainly comparing to winXP pro
I mean overall speed (when You dont have too many <background> tasks at hand)
Well I have built-in videocard (Riva TNT if im not mistaking) with 16MB
Well I didnt do default install --> I wanted to have almost everything RHL 7.3 has to offer | |
|
| I am more of a gnome than KDE guy ,myself. But frankly, I spend more time ssh'ing and running the CLI... | |
| Mr. Linux Guy 2002-11-04, 7:18 am |
| quote:
Originally posted by ccieToBe
Please tell me you had 4MB of video card RAM, not 4MB of system RAM. Even my embedded stuff has way more then 4MB of system RAM
Nay, it was video RAM that was the problem. | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by Margus
I have both Gnome & KDE installed (I think)
Im mainly comparing to winXP pro
I mean overall speed (when You dont have too many <background> tasks at hand)
Well I have built-in videocard (Riva TNT if im not mistaking) with 16MB
Well I didnt do default install --> I wanted to have almost everything RHL 7.3 has to offer
Linux's GUI's suck
They haven't got that part down yet. Even with Gnome 2 & KDE 3. They have more room for improvement before they are desktop contendors with M$. But as a server, I think Linux kicks some serious M$ butt.
If your install of Linux is slower than XP, you have too much crap running in the background that you don't need. RH 7.3 & 8 both are faster than XP, by a noticeable margin. If you have 2000 set up properly, it is faster than Linux set up properly. But not by much at all. And the problem in Linux is the GUI's. The latest versions of KDE & Gnome in RH 8.0 are quite an improvement though.
For networking stuff, I find the Gnome setup the best. For desktop, I prefer KDE. Gnome is faster & smoother on RH by quite a ways. It is also the default RH desktop.
If they are available, go get the propper video drivers for your card for Linux. It is an immense improvement.
IMHO
| |
| tohrt 2002-11-10, 11:58 pm |
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
installed RH 8.0 on a test server at home. It proved to be very unstable, and would lock up frequently. Also proved to be a hog on resources. And cricket would not work on it -- looked like some incompatibility issue with PERL of all things. Moral of the story: believe the saying that a x.0 release of RH should never be installed on a live box
Pretty sure you are looking at some hardware issues.
I've tried it on 5 different machines so far & it rivals Win2000 for stability. Unless it doesn't like the hardware. Then it acts as you described.
If it is sucking the death out of your resources, check & see what you are loading on boot that you don't need. I have 3 different kernal images loaded. The standard one - the large memory one - & the dual processor kernal. The big memory & dual kernals just fly. They aren't that bad on resources either. Less than Win2000 by quite abit. | |
| freak 2002-11-11, 12:38 am |
| it's running on a PIII 1ghz with a 60GB hard drive and half a gig of RAM. I can't imagine that I am hacing a minimum req issue | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
it's running on a PIII 1ghz with a 60GB hard drive and half a gig of RAM. I can't imagine that I am hacing a minimum req issue
No freak, it's nothing to do with a minimum issue at all. You have that more than covered. But 8 does like it's resources more than any distro of RH I've loaded so far. I have almost the same configuration on one of mine. It's a dual PIII 1GHz - A 10 & 60 Gig W/1024Mb. I have a w/s ver loaded to a dual PIII 866 W/512, with a 10 & a 60 Gb & 512 Mb I run all the time. I've found it doesn't like my WiseTech optical mouse very well at all. It's a hardware compatability issue probably. Most generally, I've found it to be either the video card or an odball mouse on my systems. Which video card do you have? I haven't found a 32 Mb video card that gave me too much troubles, but the 64's do and the 128's are very, very spotty for working right. Nvidia cards give me problems in everything but 9x systems. I have one older system that has AMI bios, & the bios is the issue.
Are you running Gnome or KDE? | |
|
| running gnome, with a regular run of the mill vid card.
I still think that the problem is the OS itself. As I said, the saying goes that you should never install any x.0 versions of Red Hat | |
|
| quote:
Originally posted by freak
running gnome, with a regular run of the mill vid card.
I still think that the problem is the OS itself. As I said, the saying goes that you should never install any x.0 versions of Red Hat
I agree on the x.0 version issue.
I've read many of your postings & generally agree with most everything you post or reply about. You have more experience than I do, also. But on this one I disagree with you. I think it is more of an isolated issue to your system or what you have loaded. I've loaded it & seen it loaded to far too many systems running smoothly to agree with you on this one.
I had a couple of sm. glitches & upgraded all my Gnome & KDE packages & haven't had a single problem since. With Linux, as always, the problem is in the GUI's.
BUT - straight out of the box, it isn't as stable & user friendly as W2k or XP because of the GUI's. But, as a server platform, I think it kicks some serious M$ butt. As a desktop, it is still too technical to be put in the same class as Win for a desktop replacement. But at the rate it is currently advancing, by ver 10.x I think Balmer/Gates & company will have something to truely worry about.
IMHO
|
|
|
|