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/