Posted by PlayfulWolf on December 29, 2011 at 2:24pm
Hi,
Found VPS provider for aegir instalation (up to 15 D6-D7 sites, 1/2 of them corporate brochure type), it will be openVZ with guaranteed 2048Mb RAM, mysql+php+apc+apache+smtp, and other basic services, maybe Apache Solr. Memcahed/Nginx/Varnish is a possibility if performance benefits over simple Boost module+APC are worth pain having another service on same vps.
Which linux to choose from this list:
CentOS 4
CentOS 5
CentOS 6
Debian 4
Debian 5
Debian 6
Fedora 14
Fedora 15
openSUSE 11.3
openSUSE 11.4
Ubuntu 10.04
Ubuntu 10.10
Ubuntu 11.04
Should I create poll?
Comments
i guess the most important
i guess the most important criterion is how much you are used to any of the distros. i'd select debian (6) and I have a feeling that it also is quoted more often in tutorials - second criterion :)
I would go with CentOS.
I would go with CentOS. Mainly because it is based on Redhat and it is used on many webservers around the world.
That said, I don't think you can go wrong with any of the above choices. It will boil down to a matter of taste.
I, from personal experience, would even try an Archlinux server for example, because Arch is what I know and the documendation is perfect!
Bill Seremetis
http://srm.gr - working with Drupal in Greece
I'd also consider for what do
I'd also consider for what do you have the best support from Aegir community: Aegir has the best documentation for Debian/Ubuntu, then for Redhat/CentOS.
Yes, you have my vote. I have
Yes, you have my vote. I have no religion here, so the choice now is between Debian and Ubuntu - which ones are less pain to administer and more stable with the same amount of effort?
drupal+me: jeweler portfolio
I think Debian is more stable
I think Debian is more stable if you keep touching stuff and moving things and installing things around.
Ubuntu is less painful to administer. There are a lot of things made to make the life of the administrator easier.
doka is right! Aegir
doka is right! Aegir documendation should be important
Bill Seremetis
http://srm.gr - working with Drupal in Greece
gnu
Debian 6
Probably not Fedora. It is
Probably not Fedora. It is considered the "testing ground" for RHEL and therefore not as stable from a server perspective. CentOS being a direct fork of RHEL would be preferred if you want to go that route as it is rock solid in comparison. I've not worked with Debian or OpenSuse enough to comment. There are a LOT of tutorials and Drupal information on CentOS but probably even more on Ubuntu.
I also agree that doka makes a very good point. Take a look at what tools you will be using and determine which OS will be best supported. In doka's example, if Aegir is very Ubuntu-centric and you plan to use Aegir now or in the future, then that may be the deciding factor. Another consideration is version. I'm not pointing you to Drubuntu but as an example, the Long Term Support (LTS) version of Ubuntu is 10.04 though Drubuntu supports only 10.10 and the "latest" stable version of Ubuntu is 11.10.
Agreed
Don't use Fedora, it updates every couple of days, and it is cutting edge, which is fine for a desktop computer, but not a web server.
It probably is more of a question of which system do you like better, I personally like the way redhat works, so I would go for CentOS or Scientific Linux. There are a ton of web servers running CentOS. For example, I like using Yum better then apt-get, I also like to use the perl script ack, which is ack on redhat and grep-ack on ubuntu. I would go with the one you are most familiar with, unless you want to do a bit of learning.
--
KellyHays.ca
My $0.02
RedHat and Debian systems are both great for hosting, choose the flavor per your experience/comfort.
That said, I'd suggest picking a version that has a support window compatible with the expected lifetime and/or maintenance cycle of the server. In some cases, "end of life" or "end of support" could mean the repositories for the OS version get shut down. This is no fun. In most cases, this at least means there will be few if any security updates. Again, only you can judge if this is a critical consideration for your use case.
For example, support for Ubuntu 10.10 and 11.04 end at points during 2012. If you like recent Ubuntu and either support isn't important or their lifetime meets your needs, go for it. Otherwise, if you want Debian-based OS, go with a true Debian (6, as 5 EOL is Feb 2012), or an LTS Ubuntu (10.04 support ends in 2015).
On the CentOS side, support for CentOS 4 ends March 2012. 5.x versions are nice and there are tons of documentation. Support for 5.x ends March 2014. CentOS 6 support ends November 2017.
You made a good point
If it was just general purpose vps - I would go with CentOS, just because you have huge base of packages and all thedocumentation+experience from redhat is a very good thing and stability always matters when you are making living with Drupal sites not with administering servers.
But as Aegir documentation is clearly made for Ubuntu users I do not want to waste time figuring how to "transform" all stuff to Redhat style, It seems that the choice is now between Debian and Ubuntu.
I would like to stay with the same provider 1-2 years, just increasing-decreasing resources as needed. So the only question remains: if I choose Ubuntu 11.04 and its EOL comes in couple of months - will it be painfull after that? Migrate to another VPS? Try to upgrade to 12.04? Is it something what can be done by reading manual? Sorry... No experience with Ubuntu, and really don't know, what it means "LTS" and will it be for example 11.04 be supported after a year? "Supported" means apt/yum and etc. can access official packages? Haven't asked those questions, because CentOS had the most stable releases of all packages and until now I didn't knew about such thing as "end of life", because CentOS seemed to be made for eternity (like WinXP).
Debian or Ubuntu? Which versions?
drupal+me: jeweler portfolio
EOL of Ubuntu 10.04 is april
LTS = Long Term Support.
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/LTS
Packages, community support, everything else until EOL.
EOL of Ubuntu 10.04 is april 2015.
I've done sudo apt-get dist-upgrade once (between 2 LTS versions), and it worked, although I did hit into 3 or 4 problems with some packages that were upgraded and their configs were in different paths.
When I did the same thing with CentOS, I did not. I hit into so many problems that it was best to just install the new version from scratch.
It does look like CentOS was made to last for life ^^
Strange, I found before, that
Strange, I found before, that CentOS is made in a most stable way that upgrading packages goes smooth, but I don't remember if I ever upgraded CentOS 3 to 4 or to 5, they have very long cycle.
So now the choice is 10.04 LTS, but I find more posts where comparable Ubuntu server dies more often than CentOS not vice versa and that scares me...
drupal+me: jeweler portfolio
CentOS is very, very stable
CentOS is very, very stable in package upgrades (since there are ALMOST none, and the ones that there are, are just security updates), but not between major version upgrades, at least that's my personal experience. I can't prove or back that up with anything.
Then really, it comes down to "Personal Flavor".
Go with the platform you're most comfortable with. The easier parameter to help you? Decide between APT / YUM.
I echo my vote for CentOS.
I echo my vote for CentOS. Selinux gives an extra layer of protection if properly setup, and yum is more robust than aptitude when the package database goes corrupt. You also have the option of switching to RHEL if you need it later on.
Some cons are, you have to plan for upgrades of versions from 5 to 6 but it remains to be seen how much planning is required for 6 to 7.
Fedora is switching over to systemctl, so that takes some time learning it, and stuff like Percona installations require you to modify yum repo information. You'll have to find init scripts for some packages. On the plus side for Fedora, the upgrade to newer versions can be smoother, and stuff like kernels and other packages get updated sooner, but its a double edged sword since it can break your existing packages, thus requiring testing.
Edit: I haven't used OpenSuse so I can't speak for that one, but the major difference to me in getting CentOS setup compared to Debian/Ubuntu was for networking. You'll have to go to /etc/sysconfig and /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts and deal with the files there. rpm -qa | grep ...(query all packages) command line knowledge of rpm along with yum is helpful.
Ubuntu LTS versions are
Ubuntu LTS versions are supported with security patches, etc. for five years. Non-LTS versions are supported for three years. I've upgraded over several versions and haven't had any major difficulty. The reason you upgrade is to get newer versions of the applications you use, such as apache2, nginx, mysql, php, etc. It is rare that a web server will care about innovations in the kernel or the startup time or such other things.
A new release of a distro will have newer versions of your server applications and sometimes those projects change things and you have to review your settings. The Debian/Ubuntu devs do everything they can to make those transitions easier with backwards compatibility and upgrade scripts, but occasionally they need manual tweaking. It's a good idea to review all your configs on a release update if for no other reason than to check if you want to enable any new features that the applications have added.
If you don't care about the new versions of your server applications, then you have little reason to upgrade to a new distro release, other than every three to five years.
Since Ubuntu software is based on Debian software, there's not much difference, except in the release schedule. Once you learn to use one you know how to use the other, with only a few exceptions.
Debian is an open community run project, while Ubuntu is a little more corporate oriented since it's run by a corporation owned by a benevolent billionaire who sold his SSL certificate business in the earlier days of the internet. Ubuntu's corporate parent sells paid support services.
I am a huge fan of Ubuntu
I am a huge fan of Ubuntu Server.
I have a lot of servers with it, and I think it's the best combination of package freshness and reliability.
If you don't want or don't need to take advantage of the new linux kernel (3.0), go with Ubuntu LTS. If you have the time to upgrade from time to time, go with the newer version.
I would never go with CentOS. It almost seems like they make package management and the overall sysadmin experience harder by purpose. It offers no practical advantage over Debian/Ubuntu, but it's a lot more painful to manage.
However, if you can setup everything once, you can leave it there for years and it will be just fine. It is certainly reliable.
One thing to watch out for is
One thing to watch out for is what version of php comes with the distro, for example Ubuntu 10.04 comes standard with php 5.3 which isn't officially supported by the Drupal community. You can downgrade to php 5.2 but it's a pain.. That said I do run my servers with Ubuntu 10.04 and php 5.2 and some with 5.3 the 5.3 ones I have had to adjust or find fixes for various modules..
This is just more of an FYI
That's not entirely true. PHP
That's not entirely true.
PHP 5.3 is the officially recommended version of PHP for Drupal 7.
I also use PHP 5.3 on all my D6 projects with little to no problems.
Debian vs. Ubuntu vs. CentOS
Urgh. Stay away from CentOS or any of the Red Hat derived distros. Yes, they're stable, but managing them is a pain, and upgrading releases can be very fragile due to fundamental flaws in RPM; as someone else has mentioned, it's generally easier to just wipe and reinstall. Just keep your vital partitions separate, and you should be fine (I'd consider setting up /home as its own partition, hosting all my Web stuff under /home/www [or similar], and then, on upgrade, backing up /etc/ [to be able to recover config files], then just wiping all but the /home partition and reinstalling).
It can also be a huge pain getting up-to-date packages for these; if "up-to-date" is a major concern for you, Debian or (esp.) Ubuntu may be a better choice anyway.
If you must, stick with using "yum"; it, at least, manages to compensate for the worst problems.
Ubuntu can be unstable but, generally, that's an issue with the non-server builds, and usually only if you set up non-standard packages. I run a private server that runs for months at a time with no issues (granted, no real heavy load, but it does handle email, IMAP, several virtualized Web sites, about a hundred MySQL databases, Minecraft server...; by "load" I mean it only has to handle two or three users, tops :-) ).
As for "Debian" vs. "Ubuntu", well, that's largely a question of personal taste, although I'd probably stick with one of the Ubuntu LTS ("Long Term Support") releases. The current LTS is 10.04 ("Lucid"); the next one will be 12.04 ("Precise"). As someone else has mentioned, all LTS builds are supported for five years, and are intended to be hassle-free on upgrades (ie: you can upgrade from 10.04 LTS to 12.04 LTS, without having to work your way through the intervening releases).
The only real issue with Ubuntu for now is as a Desktop (due to Unity); as a server, there's really little practical difference between Ubuntu and Debian.
Which one you use is really dependent on whether there are certain packages you need; in some cases Debian will be more up-to-date; in others, Ubuntu. Since Aegir develops on Ubuntu, though, it's probably simpler to just use that.
The only real "trick" to keeping Debian/Ubuntu upgrades clean is mastering use of the configuration management tools (and even if you don't it's usually not that tricky).
Debian, Ubuntu, CentOS
In that order. CentOS is fine, and very stable, just watch some of the packages.
+1 on the statements about running the long term distros, very important point.
Drupal StackExchange
T Y
Thank you, seems that all of them have own advantages and disadvantages, the only other thing I still haven't weighed is already collected experience @ Aegir site forums. Will read and choose then.
drupal+me: jeweler portfolio
Been down this road
I looked at those options plus Solaris. Solaris was the most stable, once configured, hands down. Next was Debian. Ubuntu made for a good desktop (for me) because it had more "cutting edge", but being a Debian branch, all that meant to me was that there was more stuff to "break" over Debian. The releases for Ubuntu were more numerous and Debian comes slower which translates to less admin time for me. Give me something that is older, proven, stable and has a longer shelf life for a server. I use Xen with stacked instances of Debian and that works GREAT. I can migrate systems WHILE THEY ARE RUNNING to other PHYSICAL computers with no measurable downtime - and Debian just keeps running, and running, and running. Your mileage may vary, this was my result. Hope that helps.
One more vote for Debian
PlayfulWolf, please also keep in mind that if you plan to install Aegir with the help of Barracuda/Octopus, then you cannot use CentOS. This pair is rely on apt-get and not on yum.
Debian - Installed via BOA / Barracuda+Octopus :-)
Liking to keep life simple, you might want to check out BOA ( http://groups.drupal.org/boa )
BOA is an acronym of the high performance Barracuda Octopus Aegir LEMP stack.
This group is dedicated to share experiences on using Barracuda and Octopus installers for Aegir hosting system - installation, upgrades, tuning, best practices, tips and tricks etc.
The BOA config gives you:
http://drupal.org/project/barracuda
http://drupal.org/project/octopus
And if you want to keep things real simple, you could consider Omega8cc as your ISP. Omega8cc are the primary drive behind BOA and also participate in Aegir. BTW they use it in their own hosting company.
BTW, I do not work for Omega8cc, but I do use BOA on my own server.
I second that...
I have been running BOA (Ubuntu 10.04) for the past few months in VMWare ESXI on SuperMicro servers and cant say enough awesome things about it! We run everything from Drupal enterprise cloud IaaS to hosted Cisco and Asterisk call centers side by side on these VMWare servers with no problems. Are biggest reason for BOA was the need to allow/convert some Windows admin point and click weenies (no hard feelings, I am a reformed Windows admin) over to something they could use.
Peace and Happy New Year,
Michael Clendening
Use Debian
Debian allows to easily mix & match packages from several releases using apt-pinning. I have nothing but hate for CentOS and related. These are touted as being "enterprise" level which in my experience translates to we're too lazy and sloppy to have up to date repos.
I would advise against Ubuntu since their funny naming scheme makes it a pain to mix & match packages from several releases. Usually these days I run a mix unstable/testing in my dev machine and a mix stable/testing/unstable on my servers. Things like PHP, OpenSSL and other very important packages are always the latest releases available. The web is not the traditional "enterprise" environment, it's an open exposed environment. You should run the latest releases of all packages that are the cornerstone of your stack at the risk if being p0wned if you don't. Also usually later versions are better in performance terms.
I would advise against Ubuntu
I have to disagree with you on this. I "mix & match" packages all the time, and it's a matter of remembering the alphabetical order of the releases.
lucid, maverick, natty, oneiric. L, M, N, O.
I guess it's a matter of personal preference, not being a pain to mix & match packages.
regarding "we're too lazy and
regarding "we're too lazy and sloppy to have up to date repos" : The lifecycle, milestone, stable etc. is totally different for "enterprise" distros. Even Ubuntu follows the same approach with LTS. It's all about weight factors of stable and consistent vs. cutting edge . I think the reason CentOS is considered enterprise is because it's based on Red Hat Enterprise edition.
OpenVZ might be an issue
According to the Barracuda developer "omega8cc" , OpenVZ is not supported by the Barracuda script (thus for Aegir). I find it very hard to believe that but the point is that you won't get support for any issues: http://drupal.org/node/1392020#comment-5424780
I installed Barracuda on
I installed Barracuda on OpenVZ... after install it was consuming ~95% of all RAM, which is 2GB guaranteed :( Rebooted VPS and now it is holding around ~400MB. Personally I think that it is more of a configuration problem if some apps are leaving memory leaks, because used LAMP stack on Virtuozzo for ~3years and Xen for ~1 year on a relatively expensive hosts and there were 0 memory leakage problems. Both were CentOS with php as apache2 module.
drupal+me: jeweler portfolio
Debian 6
After reading in Barracuda manual as "recomended" Debian 6 was chosen. Sadly, on OpenVZ, which is unsupported.
drupal+me: jeweler portfolio
Well, I personally think it's
Well, I personally think it's more related to the way OpenVZ manages memory rather than a config issue. In that issue, I started by outputting the "ps -aux" command. I got a Linode 512MB for a month just to compare and I've got exactly the same ram usage. The difference is when you try the "free -m" command. I'm no expert in linux to judge and compare the two platforms but I believe OpenVZ uses that extra ram the same way swap is used in Xen. So my issue was never actually a real issue - I think! I'm extremely happy with my vps provider and all sites run great with decent speed for a low end box!
Personal opinion is that unsupported OpenVZ is a bit biased. But that will give me a good reason to set Aegir myself and make platforms on my own, so I can't complain. Surely it's a timely process but in the end I'll learn a lot more!
Here's something to bear in mind
According to W3Techs Debian is the most popular distro on web servers. I rest my case ;)
By that logic Wordpress and
By that logic Wordpress and Joomla are better than Drupal!
Not really
It's one thing to base all your evaluation on a stat. Another altogether different is when a stat just confirms a lot of received wisdom about something. IMHO in this case it's the later.
As the article says , it's
As the article says , it's head to head race with CentOS. Also I don't see anywhere how they analyze those reports but ok. The point is that there's no best distro. It's a stupid question so you can only get a stupid answer. Distros are different because there are different approaches for using them. And let's be honest here. The only reason that Debian gained ground the past years is because Ubuntu is (was) a fork of Debian.
I fail to follow
your logic since on the above link Ubuntu has its own graph. Hence this is just for Debian, not aggregated Debian + Ubuntu. Also by that token can we infer that the only reason CentOS gained popularity it was because it was a RHEL derivative?
Also Ubuntu is not a fork. It's a clone/derivative with a funny name and some proprietary look ma I'm on the cloud stuff added. But I digress... :)
I agree that it's a sort of tongue in cheek question. But it's nice to see that sometimes technical merits do translate in a larger user base.
I've seen two recent trends that conform to that: Nginx and Debian growth.
Don't feed the trolls
We're getting way off-topic but this post is to clarify few things. I've seen the graph and I'm not saying that the Debian aggregates from Ubuntu. I think I was quite clear about Ubuntu and it's relation to Debian. When Ubuntu started , it was a pure fork of Debian to keep up with the 6 month released. Nowdays , Ubuntu continue to merge code from Debian Unstable so whether you like it or not it's considered a fork - only purists will disagree on that.
You may mock on Ubuntu all you want but it was the only distribution that managed to establish Linux as a desktop OS by having users/supporters with average computer skills which helped a lot expanding the user base of Linux. It filled a gap that no other player in Linux world saw as an emerging market. The notion that Linux is user friendly started with Ubuntu. Mark Shuttleworth's vision and the history that unfolded is quite remarkable and makes Ubuntu one of the most influentials distros in Linux. So you see how relative the "best distro" can be when the factor of usage kicks in. Although it's the most established distro for desktops , it has a larger share than the giants like SuSE, Red Hat and Fedora on servers according to the graph you're mentioning.
Yes, the reason that CentOS has such a large share is because of RHEL. Web server owners feel safe to have a Red Hat Enterprise without paid subscription.
If you prefer Debian for what you do it's fine. But that doesn't mean that you're the Pope and the rest are infidels!
You cannot call
something a fork if you just add a few stuff but keep using the base provided by something continually. The fact is that Ubuntu adds some stuff on top of debian unstable. They keep getting most of the packages from Sid.
We're talking about servers. Not desktops, and yes we're going off route.
A lot of Ubuntu's rise also
A lot of Ubuntu's rise also coincides with the increased popularity of cloud computing and VPS. It's not like the old days where your only real option outside of shared hosting was going with a dedicated server and 90+% of those hosting companies using CPanel/WMH to manage the servers (which isn't available for Ubuntu). Now people have a bigger choice and a lot choose to go with Ubuntu because of name recognition and the availability of help.
Not only that, but Ubuntu's forums are much more user friendly than CentOS' forums. I've seen a lot of newbies ask questions on the CentOS forums and get treated rather harsh. CentOS really isn't a Linux evangelical distro, unlike Ubuntu.
Of course Ubuntu now has to contend with Mint in the desktop battle and Mint has really gained ground over the past several months.
As far as hosting goes though, I generally stick with CentOS. I like the 7 year support cycle and for 95% of what needs to be done, it just works. The less time I have to spend tuning, tweaking and updating a client's server, the happier they are and me. Yeah they are slower at getting some things out there, like PHP 5.3, but there are a ton of 3rd party repos that are great at putting those items out and keeping them up to date.
HollyIT - Grab the Netbeans Drupal Development Tool at GitHub.
In terms of a server, and me
In terms of a server, and me being in the EXACT same situation as you, I will just let you know my experiences.
I've been using linux for about 7 years now. I started with Ubuntu as everyone else did, and just like a lot of people, ended up in the Red Hat family.
I have setup at leas 7 different servers (web, media, vdi) in ubuntu. But I have recently started migrating everything to the RHEL family. Here is the main reason: Ubuntu always tended to flake out after long use. Keep in mind this could have just been my experience, or it could have even been my doing. But every ubuntu server I have setup, that was used for several years as a base, would eventually just start having MAJOR problems that led to their death. My ubuntu media server sat in a rack for years and slowly started having issues. Hardware was replaced, and the system would get patched up (even updated). Finally it would just fall apart. Kernel Panics, etc. I would later dissect the entire system to find that new hardware did not help... the installs would be hosed, kernels would be broken, and the whole system would need an entire wipe and rebuild. After that they would run fine.
Aegir, although using ubuntu as a base, is not really specific to any linux distro. Ever since I made the switch to centos for my web servers, things tend to just go a lot smoother. Upgrading things like PHP and Zend tend to just go without a hitch. But there is one more HUGE reason I love centos for web servers. THE CONFIG PATHS NEVER CHANGE.
You can go to cent, red hat, fedora, ANY of the distro's in this family and you always know where everything is at. I could not say the same thing for debian/ubuntu. In fact, one of the major changed that separates debian and ubuntu is the file system.
They are all great. And with the proper love and care, they will all work really well for you. For me, its just about reducing headaches. So the desktops/laptops I have run Fedora, and the web servers run Cent, and everything just meshes together really well. Plus I don't have to worry about remember which system I'm on and what the filesystem is setup as.
+1 For Debian 6
I have yet to be let down by the package manager and breadth of software that is kept updated through the Debian package manager, and recommend using it.
Almost anything that I've done that is custom or off the beaten path has had straightforward, simple instructions on how to install on debian 6 (such as mariaDB or aegir) and they've gone off without a hitch.
Good Luck!