I’ve noticed that it’s nearly impossible to find a page that tells you what you need to have to run it! I was trying to find out if Iworx supports Fedora Core 5 (yet), but I couldn’t find it until I went to google and searched for it through there. I use Iworx on CentOS 4.3 on my current box at the moment, but I have another box I might be moving into colocation (if I can find a good deal), and I will want to put Iworx on it before I do that.
Perhaps it could be added to the sidebar on the home page somewhere?
As for FC 5, as far as I know this isn’t supported in 3.0. The Fedora line needs much more testing than the alternatives wih each FC update. Fedora 4 support is still not what we’d like. If you’re using CentOS 4.3 now I’d stick with that. It’s more stable and more extensively tested.
I’d prefer not to use CentOS, I’ve had big issues with it in the past with kernel panics… But I guess I’ll go with whatever is best supported for my second box, as long as it’s very stable and very secure
We have a box with FC3 running - an absoutely dream - perfect!
We have a box with FC4 runniing - a pain in the backside at times. The Iworx guys have patched up most of the discrepancies with standard distro stuff that isn’t like it should be. For example, PHP5 is configured with 3yr old PCRE libraries because someone compiled the RPM’s to use a {PREFIX} tag in the configure line! Stupid little things, but can reall cause issue.
From my expierence, now that I have a patched Iworx running, the box has held pretty stable, and its running on a Pentium Dual Core, with 2GB RAM and 2 x 160GB RAID1 Drives. Personally, if FC3 natively supported Mysql 4 then I would use that. FC4 has PHP5 & MySQL4, but some customers cant use PHP5 - so the perfect for us would be FC3-b which had PHP4 & MySQL4 - but I doubt we can get a special distro
I’d prefer not to use CentOS, I’ve had big issues with it in the past with kernel panics… But I guess I’ll go with whatever is best supported for my second box, as long as it’s very stable and very secure :D[/quote]
While the kernel panick issue with COS4.3 is unfortunate, at least we have a solution for this one. It’s still the most tested distro we have. Speaking for myself (not as an Iworx staff member) knowing everything I know I would never run Fedora on a server, at least not anhthing higher than FC3. I’ve noticed prety much every time there is a bug related to a major control panel (Iworx, cPanel, whatever) that effects only one or two distros they are Fedora and RH9.
Ultumately it’s your choice, of course and you are the one who needs to make it. If getting support from your DC is important to you thenthat’s deffinitely the avenue you should explore.
[QUOTE=IWorx-Tim;9593][…] I’ve noticed prety much every time there is a bug related to a major control panel (Iworx, cPanel, whatever) that effects only one or two distros they are Fedora and RH9.
Ultumately it’s your choice, of course and you are the one who needs to make it. If getting support from your DC is important to you thenthat’s deffinitely the avenue you should explore.[/QUOTE]Good points there,
[QUOTE=EverythingWeb;9591][…]
We have a box with FC4 runniing - a pain in the backside at times. The Iworx guys have patched up most of the discrepancies with standard distro stuff that isn’t like it should be. For example, PHP5 is configured with 3yr old PCRE libraries because someone compiled the RPM’s to use a {PREFIX} tag in the configure line! Stupid little things, but can reall cause issue.
From my expierence, now that I have a patched Iworx running, the box has held pretty stable, and its running on a Pentium Dual Core, with 2GB RAM and 2 x 160GB RAID1 Drives. Personally, if FC3 natively supported Mysql 4 then I would use that. FC4 has PHP5 & MySQL4, but some customers cant use PHP5 - so the perfect for us would be FC3-b which had PHP4 & MySQL4 - but I doubt we can get a special distro
Hope this gives you some ‘real-world’ exp.[/QUOTE]Thanks for the reply. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life maintaining this box, or waste the time of the guys here when I could make it easier by chosing a different distro, so I guess I’ll use CentOS… :eek:
I think the “Table of Contents” box (with links #hardware, #vps, #software) isn’t necessary for small pages like these.
PS: BTW, most (good) hosts I see (or have used) seem to use CentOS. Most mention it as Redhat, but visitors might not know that they use CentOS and not RHEL (of course both are same :)). And, some use FreeBSD and a few? use Debian. I guess FreeBSD has got a reputation regarding reliability.
[quote=tiger;9596]I think the “Table of Contents” box (with links #hardware, vps, #software) isn’t necessary for small pages like these.
[/quote]
No it isn’t but it’s generated automatically by the software we use to create and maintain the site. THe staging site is a wiki (dukuwiki) and we run a script that parses those pages and creates HTML pages with our custom template. As far as I know there is no way to remove those menus on a page by page basis.
PS: BTW, most (good) hosts I see (or have used) seem to use CentOS. Most mention it as Redhat, but visitors might not know that they use CentOS and not RHEL (of course both are same :)). And, some use FreeBSD and a few? use Debian. I guess FreeBSD has got a reputation regarding reliability.
Yes, FreeBSD is regarded as very stable and very configurable, which is one of the reasons we will be eventually adding support for it.
What I’ve seen host do is mention “Enterprise Linux” and have a RedHat logo on the page somewhere. Implicitly stating that you are using RHEL when you use CentOS is NOT a good idea unless you want the RedHat lawysers on you
FreeBSD may be very stable, but it’s a total bitch to do anything with. I’ve dumped all my FreeBSD machines because it’s almost always a pain in the ass to get anything to work right.
Generally (but not always) if you install it from /usr/ports it works ok, but IME there are a lot of peices of software that aren’t in /usr/ports that are generally very useful in the context of web hosting.
Just a quick note, regarding the CentOs 4.3 … One of the Kernel versions in 4.3, had a proeminent problem. Something i had a response from my Provider, stating the following:
Kernel Panic - Not syncing : fs/block_dev.c:396
This was a bug, which now on CentOS 4.4 seems to be gone. Before, this latest release, i had the server rebooted every two days at the best. Good thing about it, is that the ppl down at the Datacenter already knew the drill so any time an alarm went off about it, they would do the reboot themselves. Anyways, right now, with the 4.4 it’s working like a charm. For everyone wanting to go stable, since Debian isn’t available, i’d recommend CentOS, even against the proeminent Red Hat’s Enterprise Server, same flavour, the only thing missing the O.S. support. Even to Interworx, i’d recommend having a look at Debian. It’s the most stable distro i know.
Regarding the VPS thematic, well… Debian, with Parallels or VMWare. Personally, i like VMWare, althouhg the weight… just kills me, but since now it’s free… why not. Parallels, well it’s going on a good way, though not free, it’s affordable. Both of there, are true separated environments, nothing better for server deployment.
Another thing I’ve notoced. RHEL actually comes in two different server class flavors EL (Enterprise Server) and AS (Advanced Server). Most of the DC’s I’ve looked at offer ES, but CentOS is based upon AS, the better one
