Steve
That explains a lot.
cheers
Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Traylen [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 07 December 2004 13:02
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Which Scientific Linux flavour?
>
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 10:58:57AM -0000 or thereabouts,
> Steve Thorn wrote:
> > At ScotGrid we have been discussing which flavour/customization of
> > Scientific Linux should be used in future deployments.
> >
> > I have examined various combinations of customization and install
> > options - the results of which I thought would be
> interesting to share
> > on this list.
>
> Thanks Steve,
>
> I think something to point out is that SLC3 is not a true
> SL3. i.e. it is not an unmodified SL3 core with extra packages.
>
> As far as I can tell it was done completly in isolation, CERN
> had already done to much work on their port to then start on
> a different base line.
>
> Steve
>
> >
> > cheers
> > Steve
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Dr Steve Thorn
> >
> > ScotGrid Systems Administrator
> > National e-Science Centre
> > 15 South College Street
> > Edinburgh EH8 9AA
> > United Kingdom
> >
> > Tel: +44 (0)131 650 9815
> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > -------
> >
> > Scientific Linux flavours
> > =========================
> >
> > I tried four installations. Three from CERN and one vanilla
> as follows:
> >
> > Scientific Linux 3.0.3 CERN ISOs with three install options:
> >
> > 1 - CERN Recommended Setup
> >
> > 2 - Personal Desktop (no CERN customization chosen)
> >
> > 3 - Custom, minimal
> >
> > Vanilla Scientific Linux 3.0.3 ISOs:
> >
> > 4 - Custom, minimal plus optional apt and removal of
> unnecessary RPMs
> > post-install (telnet, ftp, remaining kde and gnome RPMs,
> > redhat-configs, finger, infrared and isdn support...)
> >
> > I was expecting to find no evidence of CERN components in 2
> & 3, but
> > found some:
> >
> > CERN component 1 2 3
> > --------------------------
> > sue Y N N
> > hepix Y N N
> > AFS Y N N
> > CERN kernel Y Y Y
> > APT Y Y Y
> > Quattor Y Y N
> >
> > Note:
> >
> > - the list of CERN components is not meant to be exhaustive.
> > - the CERN kernel is probably just labelled as such and
> doesn't differ
> > from vanilla SL.
> >
> > I found it particularly amazing that the Personal Desktop install
> > without CERN customization installs elements of Quattor!
> >
> > As expected install 4 has no (obvious) customization. I
> think there's
> > very little difference between 3 and 4 except for the removal of
> > unnecessary RPMs in 4 and kernel renaming.
> >
> > User Interface installation
> > ===========================
> >
> > I used the User Interface (LCG 2.2.0) manual install to test the SL
> > flavours (this was done before the 2.3.0 release). Note that this
> > version has only been certified on Red Hat 7.3, but I expected some
> > functionality given deployment team feedback and especially
> if I could
> > install the RPMs without breaking dependencies. I tried two of the
> > above four flavours:
> >
> > 1 - SL CERN Recommended Setup
> >
> > 4 - SL Minimal with apt.
> >
> > The install of RPMs on both was a little tricky with APT unable to
> > resolve dependencies without intervention. But both installed
> > eventually with no dependency broken. All UI functionality I tested
> > worked with both.
> >
> > There is a curiosity with install 4 here. To resolve some
> dependencies
> > the SL CERN APT repository had to be added to pick up a few
> RPMs that
> > are not available from Fermilab. When an upgrade is subsequently
> > performed, APT treats CERN RPMs as newer than SL ones with the same
> > version number, presumably because of the CERN postfix. For example:
> >
> > tcsh-6.12-4 -> tcsh-6.12-4.cern
> >
> > this is somewhat annoying.
> >
> > In addition, there are a number of CERN RPMs that have
> newer version
> > numbers than vanilla SL. Does this mean CERN are updating faster?
> >
> > Summary
> > =======
> >
> > It would seem that the flavour of Scientific Linux is not too
> > important, which is good. Our preference is to keep it as simple as
> > possible and use install 4 (I note that this agrees with
> the Generic
> > LCG install guides).
> >
> > The minimal installs are probably missing a lot of
> functionality that
> > LCG users will want (for example, no compilers). With APT this can
> > easily be rectified so I don't consider it a problem. Is there
> > information on what users expect to find installed on the
> Worker Nodes?
>
> --
> Steve Traylen
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/
>
|