Testing oVirt...
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yeah, DevOps in finance is old hat. They've been doing that for quite a while.
devops, config management, containers, kubernetes, a bunch of various big-data tech. When I see that mentioned, I can easily imagine what the structure of their currently developed software is - microservices all the way, no legacy involved.
Big business tends to list requirements that they sense as trends, long before they use them internally.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
Can you show any research, benchmarks, stats, anything that shows Fedora is actually better and more stable than an EL distribution?
Define "better" and "stable". And for who?
-
@obsolesce said in Testing oVirt...:
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
Can you show any research, benchmarks, stats, anything that shows Fedora is actually better and more stable than an EL distribution?
Define "better" and "stable". And for who?
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
-
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
-
@dyasny Lol I agree with that. People in many industries are constantly renaming things to make it sound new and raise the hype.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Big business tends to list requirements that they sense as trends, long before they use them internally.
Maybe, but the interviews were with the guys already implementing the tech, and they were quite happy to describe what is already done and why they wanted me to join up
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
What exactly was CentOS slower at? What features were lacking? How exactly it could not support "living software"?
-
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?
-
@jmoore said in Testing oVirt...:
@dyasny Lol I agree with that. People in many industries are constantly renaming things to make it sound new and raise the hype.
When I was working as an Openstack integration engineer, I had a little framed note on my desk. It read "there is no cloud, it's just someone else's computer"
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?
Support. Fedora has insanely broad vendor (meaning RH) and third party (the software makers) support. Possibly the broadest in the industry, or maybe second after Ubuntu. But Ubuntu support leans towards the unsupported LTS releases making Ubuntu products questionably supported at all (since Ubuntu's official stance is that if you need LTS support beyond consulting, meaning actual fixes, you might have to leave LTS and go to Current and if your software vendor is LTS only, the resulting product is unsupported.)
Alpine is great, but not many vendors test against it.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
What exactly was CentOS slower at? What features were lacking? How exactly it could not support "living software"?
PHP packages are the glaring one lots of us ran into recently.
Living software, meaning software that companies were actively updating and releasing tended to eventually require that we bolt on Fedora libraries to CentOS to keep it working - 100% defeating the purpose of CentOS since now we are using Fedora anyway, but without as much unified testing from either side.
Ran into this with a lot of packages.
Those that still worked on CentOS, did so at a fraction of the speed. Not ideal. Bottom line, CentOS hasn't been up to the job. It's too much like old Windows - a great solution with the goal being of supporting bad third party products that aren't current themselves (and are often ghost ships.)
In the Windows world, abandoned software is the norm, not the exception. It's so common, no one thinks much of it. The entire Windows ecosystem embraces this traditionally (this is starting to change as MS wants to start being more competitive) and much of the Windows super slow release schedule and the way they traditionally treated an update more like a new product that would stand on its own forever were focused around providing an aging, never-updating platform for non-living software packages that needed to just "keep running" without real updates for possibly decades.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you.
Remember no one wants bleeding edge. Current stable and bleeding edge are worlds apart.
Long Term Release < Current Stable < Cutting Edge < Bleeding Edge
Fedora is very production ready, very stable. It's very, very far away from bleeding edge. Even Tumbleweed is only cutting edge.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?
Support. Fedora has insanely broad vendor (meaning RH) and third party (the software makers) support. Possibly the broadest in the industry, or maybe second after Ubuntu. But Ubuntu support leans towards the unsupported LTS releases making Ubuntu products questionably supported at all (since Ubuntu's official stance is that if you need LTS support beyond consulting, meaning actual fixes, you might have to leave LTS and go to Current and if your software vendor is LTS only, the resulting product is unsupported.)
Alpine is great, but not many vendors test against it.
Actual vendor support for Fedora is tiny compared to EL, you are really describing an alternate reality here. I have never seen anyone doing any production work on Fedora, beyond development and desktop computing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Remember no one wants bleeding edge. Current stable and bleeding edge are worlds apart.
Long Term Release < Current Stable < Cutting Edge < Bleeding Edge
Fedora is very production ready, very stable. It's very, very far away from bleeding edge. Even Tumbleweed is only cutting edge.
I really don't know where you are getting this from. I've never seen such an opinion expressed from anyone in the business, neither in my 10 years within Red Hat or in my over 20 years in IT in general. Fedora is supposed to be as close to the development code as possible, there is no QA there, just basic testing to make sure stuff can be compiled/built/installed, nothing else. Even the layered upstream products get way more testing on EL than on Fedora (hence the dumping of Fedora for oVirt, and IIRC RDO too).
I really wonder how you managed to come up with this conviction of yours and what makes you believe it besides your own experiences
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@black3dynamite said in Testing oVirt...:
Because of Fedora release schedule, I don't have to rely to much on using additional repos for stuff like php, databases, etc.
Well, if you need the latest bleeding edge releases, of course an EL distro isn't for you. Why use Fedora though, when you can use something more lightweight, like Alpine, in a container?
Support. Fedora has insanely broad vendor (meaning RH) and third party (the software makers) support. Possibly the broadest in the industry, or maybe second after Ubuntu. But Ubuntu support leans towards the unsupported LTS releases making Ubuntu products questionably supported at all (since Ubuntu's official stance is that if you need LTS support beyond consulting, meaning actual fixes, you might have to leave LTS and go to Current and if your software vendor is LTS only, the resulting product is unsupported.)
Alpine is great, but not many vendors test against it.
Actual vendor support for Fedora is tiny compared to EL, you are really describing an alternate reality here. I have never seen anyone doing any production work on Fedora, beyond development and desktop computing.
Yes, but I would never pay for EL support or do business with RH on ethics grounds. The "support" is how much they support the OS and make sure that it works, and they do a pretty amazing job with Fedora. Bottom line, Fedora gets "support" to make it work in the real world, EL gets "support" that you pay for to help you when you don't know what you are doing.
In the real world, Fedora is supported and works. EL does not for production workloads I deal with. When I have the choice between the two, Fedora every time.
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Remember no one wants bleeding edge. Current stable and bleeding edge are worlds apart.
Long Term Release < Current Stable < Cutting Edge < Bleeding Edge
Fedora is very production ready, very stable. It's very, very far away from bleeding edge. Even Tumbleweed is only cutting edge.
I really don't know where you are getting this from. I've never seen such an opinion expressed from anyone in the business, neither in my 10 years within Red Hat or in my over 20 years in IT in general. Fedora is supposed to be as close to the development code as possible, there is no QA there, just basic testing to make sure stuff can be compiled/built/installed, nothing else. Even the layered upstream products get way more testing on EL than on Fedora (hence the dumping of Fedora for oVirt, and IIRC RDO too).
I really wonder how you managed to come up with this conviction of yours and what makes you believe it besides your own experiences
And vice versa. Having worked at the vendor in question, it feels like you are seeing this through the eyes of the sales team, and not thinking about it from the perspective of the customers needing to actually run the product. Where is your conviction coming from, other than it being the sales mantra of the vendor?
Having used both in the real world, what problems do you see with Fedora and what old code are you running that EL always has what you need?
Are you really seeing Fedora instabilities that the rest of us are not? Are you really not running any modern code that benefits from current libraries and packages?
-
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
What exactly was CentOS slower at?
What exactly is CentOS slower at?
Every major web server, many database servers.
What features were lacking? How exactly it could not support "living software"?
We know that PHP 5.X is many times slower than PHP 7.X. Meaning that any admin actually deploying a web server with PHP 5.X is acting maliciously. Adding support for PHP 7.X onto Red Hat/CentOS is an additional process that isn't needed in Fedora at the least, and creates package dependency headaches quite often.
-
@travisdh1 said in Testing oVirt...:
@dyasny said in Testing oVirt...:
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Right, Fedora has been faster and more stable for us. CentOS was much slower, lacked solid features, and had support issues (because it was unable to continue to support living software that was still updating while the OS had stagnated.)
What exactly was CentOS slower at?
What exactly is CentOS slower at?
Every major web server, many database servers.
What features were lacking? How exactly it could not support "living software"?
We know that PHP 5.X is many times slower than PHP 7.X. Meaning that any admin actually deploying a web server with PHP 5.X is acting maliciously. Adding support for PHP 7.X onto Red Hat/CentOS is an additional process that isn't needed in Fedora at the least, and creates package dependency headaches quite often.
And once you start replacing the "tested, supported" pieces of EL with Fedora pieces, um..... that defeats the purpose.
I don't think even RH management would argue that RHEL is better tested with Fedora components than Fedora is.
-
What I'm hearing here is that we should move to Ubuntu, because their current release IS their key production release with the testing and support.
If RH really treats Fedora so haphazardly, and RHEL is so pathetically out of date, that makes both sound like bad platforms to be on.
In reality, I simply don't believe that Fedora isn't stable. I've seen zero evidence of this, I know of no one having or having had Fedora stability issues. Nor CentOS / EL stability issues. Both are quite stable.
EL has the advantage of having "so much testing", and Fedora has the benefit of "much more updates". Ten years ago, we pretty much all agreed that the additional testing outweighed being up to date. But I don't see that as being the case any more.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Testing oVirt...:
Yes, but I would never pay for EL support or do business with RH on ethics grounds.
Care to elaborate?
The "support" is how much they support the OS and make sure that it works,
Oh no, you clearly never worked with RH proper. I've spent 4 years in RH support, and there is so much more there
and they do a pretty amazing job with Fedora. Bottom line, Fedora gets "support" to make it work in the real world, EL gets "support" that you pay for to help you when you don't know what you are doing.
Nope. Fedora gets built by professionals to be an OS that has all the latest code that is capable of working at least somehow. Not well, not in a stable manner, but work. Working well and stabilization is all the work that goes into EL afterwards.
Support for EL isn't about handholding, it's about making integrations work, about providing customers with very quick fixes to their specific problems at the code level sometimes, and about working with the customers on what they need in their distribution. I've gone through T4 support to product management and seen exactly that all the way. Simple handholding is something you get from ISP support with a bunch of kids who read from a script. Don't get confused between the two.
In the real world, Fedora is supported and works. EL does not for production workloads I deal with. When I have the choice between the two, Fedora every time.
In the real world, especially at scale, nobody has the time to deal with the bugs you get in the new untested code. Not everything can be solved by restarting a microservice, and not many organizations keep talent onboard, who can fix a kernel bug on the fly. This is why people rely on EL and other enterprise grade software.
