Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Released

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the onward-and-upward dept.

Red Hat Software 231

An anonymous reader writes: Today, Red Hat unveiled Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, with new features designed to meet both modern datacenter and next-generation IT requirements for cloud, Linux Containers, and big data. The new version includes Linux containers (LXC), which let Linux users easily create and manage system or application containers, improved MS Active Directory / Identity Management (IdM) integration, XFS as the default file system, scaling to 500 TB (additional file system choices such as btrfs, ext{3,4} and others are available), a new and improved installation experience, managing Linux servers with OpenLMI, enhancements to both NFS and GFS2, optimized network management, bandwidth, the use of KVM Virtualization technology and more. See the complete list of features here (PDF). CentOS 7 shouldn't be lagging too far behind due to recent cooperation between Red Hat and CentOS project.

cancel ×

231 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

People still use Red Hat? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205069)

I tried RHEL once but everything was so old. I'm sticking to Arch for now.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (5, Insightful)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#47205093)

Stable is the word you are looking for.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205141)

Stable, well-tested, and guaranteed ABI compatibility within major releases.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205155)

Red Hat stability is overrated. I have yet to see an Arch box crash. Just keep up to date on what's going on and read changelogs before installing updates, _which you should already do_ if you want stability.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#47205333)

Red Hat aims not only for stability in the sense of "not crashing", but in the sense of "doesn't change a lot within a major release", especially in the core libraries and language runtimes. Companies often like that kind of stability, because they have miscellaneous in-house or commercial software running on top of the base system, which has a habit of breaking when anything is upgraded under it. So within a major version, Red Hat carefully rolls out only non-ABI-breaking changes, e.g. by backporting bugfixes to previous major versions of libraries.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (0, Troll)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#47205393)

BULL SHIT.

Redhat routinely changes shit horrendously within release. They removed the crmsh configuration and replaced it with a completely different configuration tool in RHEL6, breaking a bunch of shit. They do this continuously: upgrade software, change some shit around, deprecate old tools for new tools, and tell you it's improved.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 4 months ago | (#47205491)

Hah, that could be. My own experience with "stability" in the sense I'm explaining above is actually almost all with Debian stable, rather than Red Hat. And Debian is actually pretty good at keeping breaking changes out of point releases. It sounds like Red Hat is not as disciplined on that?

Re:People still use Red Hat? (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#47205755)

Debian policy filters down to Ubuntu. Even on Ubuntu's 18 month releases, on their 5 year LTS releases, on anything labeled as release, the policy stands: there shall be no changes which make any action which produced a working result prior now produce a non-working result, unless such a change is absolutely unavoidable when removing a security vulnerability.

Even some predictable bugs may not get updates, for example, a bug in Perl 5.14 which produces consistent incorrect results would likely not get a fix backported if much software predicated its behavior on Perl 5.14 behavior. By contrast, a bug in Proftpd which completely ignores IdleTimeout would get a fix: IdleTimeout does nothing, is not working, and thus Proftpd is broken and nothing predicates on this unique lack of proper function.

RedHat is more likely to upgrade a kernel header, causing defined values in perl and C programs to become undefined or different, leading to arbitrary breakage. This has happened a few times.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205827)

The kernel package in particular is one of the things that Red Hat changes a lot, but usually only between minor releases. A small addition such as KVM was introduced in 5.2 for example.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205627)

BULL SHIT.

Redhat routinely changes shit horrendously within release. They removed the crmsh configuration and replaced it with a completely different configuration tool in RHEL6, breaking a bunch of shit. They do this continuously: upgrade software, change some shit around, deprecate old tools for new tools, and tell you it's improved.

crmsh was in tech preview. Red Hat never committed to supporting that. Pay attention to the support status of what you are deploying.

Graded on a curve... (2)

Junta (36770) | about 4 months ago | (#47205687)

RHEL is about as change averse as a *Linux* company gets. They have the unfortunate balance to play between fulfilling the mission of a solid predictable experience and not appearing to lag so much compared to the base people are well aware of. At times, I will say RHEL is in denial about ABI-breaking changes (e.g. swearing up and down that a kernel driver should compile and work against their rather dramatically backported base just as if it was really the kernel version advertised in uname output).

If you want 'stuff that never changes while still giving new hardware support', you are pretty much stuck with AIX or mainframe at this point.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205709)

Hummm... No. You are talking about Debian instead.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206323)

What medicine are you on and where can I get some? RHEL and Fedora aren't done until your computer won't run. They break things just for the sheer pleasure of breaking them.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206041)

WTF? And who are you again? i have yet to see a f*ckin arch box in any mission critical environment ffs

Re:People still use Red Hat? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205123)

Arch Linux does not provide the proper mission critical robustness and quality assurance. There's a reason why RHEL does not target the bleeding edge.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (-1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 months ago | (#47205215)

Arch Linux does not provide the proper mission critical robustness and quality assurance. There's a reason why RHEL does not target the bleeding edge.

And do you know what else it doesn't do? It doesn't allow you to play buzzword bingo!

Re:People still use Red Hat? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205565)

Hah! Yeah, that'll work *great* in a production server, particularly when arch makes a breaking change.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (4, Insightful)

Rafael Jaimes III (3430609) | about 4 months ago | (#47205727)

Comparing apples to oranges when it comes to linux distros. RHEL is for mission critical stability and especially servers where you don't want stuff changing all the time. Rolling release distros are dangerous in production environments. Especially a distro like Arch takes way too much effort to setup and maintain. Not every computer is a hobby.

Re:People still use Red Hat? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205977)

You think a hobby distribution that didn't even have package signing until 6 months ago is a competitor to RedHat?

Red Hot Linux (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205073)

Careful, it's hot!

So CentOS will be out in 2016? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205075)

That would still be faster. But seriously, Red Hat is slow and CentOS lags far behind even that. glibc 2.12 is just too old to run much of what I need to run on Linux.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205117)

rhel7 comes with glibc 2.17.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205179)

Yep, but the problem is that for the next ten years it will _still_ come with glibc 2.17. Some people actually new new apps too.

Not a problem... (4, Informative)

Junta (36770) | about 4 months ago | (#47205255)

There are scenarios in which a meticulously backported base with few to no functional changes is valuable. That is the entire point of RHEL, to be able to have support lifecycle that more closely matches Microsoft or Unix offerings.

If you need more rapidly updating content, then a distribution like Ubuntu or Arch or Fedora is a better fit. Ubuntu LTS might be a decent approach for some. The good thing about this ecosystem is you can select an experience based on your needs.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205275)

Yep, but the problem is that for the next ten years it will _still_ come with glibc 2.17. Some people actually new new apps too.

This is where containers is a good idea. Use RHEL as a stable base system and run something like Fedora in a container for the few apps that need it.

Re: So CentOS will be out in 2016? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205771)

As we move towards a stable core os and containerized applications, some long time users are going to get outdated quickly on how linux is being used in the real world.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (4, Informative)

blane.bramble (133160) | about 4 months ago | (#47206035)

You are missing the whole point - the idea is that throughout the 7.x release the glibc (/ other software) version will not change, so in 10 years time your *current* software investment will still work, rather than being force to upgrade. Stability means not changing what is deployed *now* in the future. For many deployments this is crucial. If you do not need this form of long-term software stack stability, then, yes, RedHat is not for you - however there is no point criticising RedHat for a policy that is deliberately enforced for a good reason.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (2)

Rob Y. (110975) | about 4 months ago | (#47206263)

I agree that long-term ABI stability is important. But on AIX, they've managed to maintain backward compatibility for years. Almost everything built on way old versions of AIX runs on the latest version. If they have to provide multiple versions of some libraries to handle broken old behaviors, they do that too. Maybe I'm missing something here - like maybe AIX includes a much smaller set of libraries than RedHat. But for the purposes of our apps, AIX has been a really nice, stable platform. Nothing flashy, but no surprises.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205171)

Debian is the GNU for you.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205205)

Debian is not always that fast. Just take Gnome for example, sid is still on 3.8 which is getting kind of old by now. And not to mention that they are still in the process of switching to systemd. Debian is great, but the stable release is usually what you want and then you're back in RHEL territory.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205287)

We have been waiting to see if 7 will give us a speed increase with postgresql - the older kernels are supposed to be slower with io. Still, we haven't changed because as others have said, it's nice and stable and we need that more than speed.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205443)

Scientific Linux will probably still beat CentOS to the punch. They did with 6.

Re:So CentOS will be out in 2016? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about 4 months ago | (#47205851)

It is a balancing act. I agree with you completely....if we are talking about my desktop. On my desktop, or often, even my development box, I want something new. I want bleeding edge.

However, when the customer says they need a deployment of product ABC that depends on component XYZ that we have only ever deployed on RHEL5..... right now, in production, with a customer waiting, is NOT the time to try it on RHEL7 or even RHEL6. Now is the time to install RHEL5, give the customer his system.... then go back to development and try something newer.

Add in that XYZ may even be a third party component that is only supported on RHEL5, and going to that adds even more risk, because now we are not only risking that it wont work, but that it might cause an issue down the line where I, or one of my co-workers, will be left in the lurch by the support we pay for....and they will be right to do it!

THAT is why RHEL exists and why you think its old. It is old. You are right, your mistake is only in thinking that what matters to you matters to everyone else or what matters to others should matter to you.It isn't because anyone likes running and supporting systems that old, its because the ecosystem is so large and we have other priorities than staying on top of the bleeding edge.

Yes if I was responsible for even 100 systems, maybe keeping up to date would be a priority. Try an environment with over a few thousand with multiple customers and multiple offerings, with support organizations that need to be kept up to speed.

Hell I have had to fight people about patching. "We need RHEL5.4, and we need it patched to the latest" "SO you want 5.9?" "No we want 5.4" "so don't run updates" "no, it has to be patched to the latest!"

Or even "why are we deploying 5.5?" "because we run updates after install and after updates it becomes 5.5" "but we only ever approved 5.4" "So you don't want us to run updates" "no we have to be patched to the latest!"

Seriously....makes me want to scream (or did, I left that place), and you really think having the latest wiz-bang tools available is anything but the least of my worries? Not in production it isn't.

Source RPMs (4, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205257)

I was going to the FTP site to look at the sources [redhat.com] , but apparently they have moved.

Current sources for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 have been moved to the following location:

https://git.centos.org/project... [centos.org]

That's a bit cool actually.

Source RPMs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206509)

Yes, since January, CentOS is part of RedHat.

... and with systemd. (2, Interesting)

psergiu (67614) | about 4 months ago | (#47205261)

I bet they'll have to support RHEL6 for many and many years as a lot of companies won't upgrade to RHEL7.

http://boycottsystemd.org/ [boycottsystemd.org]

Re:... and with systemd. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205367)

But a lot of them will. It turns out that systemd is actually kind of good.

Highly subjective... (1)

Junta (36770) | about 4 months ago | (#47205421)

For a large chunk of users, no diffence.

For people who dig deep in, huge difference with very polarizing attributes. Some people like the goodies it brings, but it changes a whole lot of stuff in the process without much of a care for appeasing those that appreciate how things worked.

Basically, systemd is building something different. Some say better, some say worse. I happen to be in the latter camp even after using it at significant length.

Re:... and with systemd. (0)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47205511)

I see little good about systemd.

Re:... and with systemd. (4, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 4 months ago | (#47205773)

I bet they'll have to support RHEL6 for many and many years as a lot of companies won't upgrade to RHEL7.

http://boycottsystemd.org/ [boycottsystemd.org]

Systemd is the new future toolbox for maintaining and running Linux: All major enterprise Linux distros are using or are about to use systemd. Sure, a few companies will delay their transition to systemd if they have a lot of custom stuff they need to change, but systemd just have so many new awesome features that most will embrace it with joy; systemd simply means faster and better maintenance, and being able to pack more services in each hardware unit.

Those who dislike systemd are just a tiny but vocal minority; they have also spend the last couple of years smearing named open source developers like Lennart Poettering and trash-talking systemd, instead of developing an alternative to systemd. As a group they accept how the most extreme voices against systemd are unopposed, meaning that all the swivel eyed loonies with their paranoid ranting have become spokespersons for them, resulting in that nobody wants to work with them. So not only are the systemd detractors a small group, but they alienate most of the potential developers they could have had.

The end result is that almost nobody works on alternatives to systemd. Critical software like "ConsoleKit" is bit-rotting, nobody tries to help upstream projects supporting anything else but logind, despite that eg. Gnome developers have warned about this for years.

Instead of helping KDE and Gnome supporting non-systemd systems, the systemd detractors just rant on how NSA/The Greys/Poettering are controlling Gnome and KDE, and that everybody should boycot them and use CDE instead.

Like it or not, systemd will be in any Linux distro of importance in the future. Sysvinit (and X) are on life support and will be killed off at first opportunity people get. Even OpenBSD are starting to clone certain parts of systemd, and there is no doubt that all BSD's will have their init-system upgraded to a modern version inspired/cloned from systemd in the upcoming years. It is simply that good.

Re:... and with systemd. (2)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#47205991)

I bet they'll have to support RHEL6 for many and many years as a lot of companies won't upgrade to RHEL7.

http://boycottsystemd.org/ [boycottsystemd.org]

Systemd is the new future toolbox for maintaining and running Linux: All major enterprise Linux distros are using or are about to use systemd. Sure, a few companies will delay their transition to systemd if they have a lot of custom stuff they need to change, but systemd just have so many new awesome features that most will embrace it with joy; systemd simply means faster and better maintenance, and being able to pack more services in each hardware unit.

Those who dislike systemd are just a tiny but vocal minority; they have also spend the last couple of years smearing named open source developers like Lennart Poettering and trash-talking systemd, instead of developing an alternative to systemd. As a group they accept how the most extreme voices against systemd are unopposed, meaning that all the swivel eyed loonies with their paranoid ranting have become spokespersons for them, resulting in that nobody wants to work with them. So not only are the systemd detractors a small group, but they alienate most of the potential developers they could have had.

The end result is that almost nobody works on alternatives to systemd. Critical software like "ConsoleKit" is bit-rotting, nobody tries to help upstream projects supporting anything else but logind, despite that eg. Gnome developers have warned about this for years.

Instead of helping KDE and Gnome supporting non-systemd systems, the systemd detractors just rant on how NSA/The Greys/Poettering are controlling Gnome and KDE, and that everybody should boycot them and use CDE instead.

Like it or not, systemd will be in any Linux distro of importance in the future. Sysvinit (and X) are on life support and will be killed off at first opportunity people get. Even OpenBSD are starting to clone certain parts of systemd, and there is no doubt that all BSD's will have their init-system upgraded to a modern version inspired/cloned from systemd in the upcoming years. It is simply that good.

Systemd is not "that good." As an opponent myself, I am an admin, not a developer. And as an admin, I fail to see what was wrong with the BSD Init system. It works. It's simple. It's good.

And as far as Mr. Poettering goes, I much prefer to trash talk his work. Attacking him, no matter what you may think of him, doesn't get the point across.

Re:... and with systemd. (1)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 4 months ago | (#47206201)

Systemd is not "that good." As an opponent myself, I am an admin, not a developer. And as an admin, I fail to see what was wrong with the BSD Init system. It works. It's simple. It's good.

And as far as Mr. Poettering goes, I much prefer to trash talk his work. Attacking him, no matter what you may think of him, doesn't get the point across.

There are many not so nice things about old style init scripts. Come on, executable config files where code and declarative statements are mixed? Who thought that was a good idea? Many people also find that debugging such scripts are hard etc. But the main thing isn't so much that old style script init systems are inherently bad, but that they don't work well with modern day computing.

The days of running a handful of services on a single server, directly on the metal, while hand crafting scripts, are basically over.

These days it is all about packing maximum of services on each hardware unit, with virtualization, OS containers, services on demand, plugging services into LSM's (Linux Security Modules). It is all about massive and fast deployment, cloud computing, and getting the most from the hardware you got, for the least amount of effort. Automatic supervising chains of all processes and services are simply a must, rate limiting and service hardening with minimal effort are required.

Old style script init systems simply aren't a good solution for present and future systems. Even BSD will eventually upgrade their init systems to something modern like systemd. OpenBSD already have a GSoC project for cloning part of it.

Re:... and with systemd. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206415)

I am an admin, not a developer

Then you should respect the opinion of those that are objectively superior to you. System admins are little more than peasants.

Re:... and with systemd. (1)

Junta (36770) | about 4 months ago | (#47205993)

instead of developing an alternative to systemd

The stance amongst those opposed to systemd was that what wasn't broken didn't need fixing. Some people disagree and think it needs to be fixed and systemd is it. People objecting to systemd largely don't have to create an alternative, they are content with the linux distributions as they were.

Instead of helping KDE and Gnome supporting non-systemd systems,

KDE at least I thought purported to continue supporting non-systemd systems already. Gnome 3 developers very linked in with the systemd developers and as a whole they prioritize the purity of their vision over any criticisms. Perhaps appropriately electing to focus on bringing their vision to life to serve those who would follow the vision and letting the rest go on to KDE or xfce or MATE or whatever. I personally don't care about gnome shell as it doesn't serve my needs anymore either, but I can accept that they are caring after their user experience. I also wouldn't mind systemd so much except for the fact it is becoming unavoidable whilst retaining compatilibity with ongoing projects in linux.

Re:... and with systemd. (3, Funny)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 4 months ago | (#47206343)

instead of developing an alternative to systemd

The stance amongst those opposed to systemd was that what wasn't broken didn't need fixing. Some people disagree and think it needs to be fixed and systemd is it. People objecting to systemd largely don't have to create an alternative, they are content with the linux distributions as they were.

Of course you need to develop alternatives to systemd in order to decay into non-functionality. AFAIK, running a multi-user non-systemd OS these days, depends on a old bit-rotting version of ConsoleKit. There are many more features that will break and bit rot in the future for lack of maintenance; Red Hat, Suse, Debian, Ubuntu, etc. won't put resources into developing for non-systemd systems.

Instead of helping KDE and Gnome supporting non-systemd systems,

KDE at least I thought purported to continue supporting non-systemd systems already. Gnome 3 developers very linked in with the systemd developers and as a whole they prioritize the purity of their vision over any criticisms. Perhaps appropriately electing to focus on bringing their vision to life to serve those who would follow the vision and letting the rest go on to KDE or xfce or MATE or whatever. I personally don't care about gnome shell as it doesn't serve my needs anymore either, but I can accept that they are caring after their user experience. I also wouldn't mind systemd so much except for the fact it is becoming unavoidable whilst retaining compatilibity with ongoing projects in linux.

KDE will support running on non-systemd distros, but it will be with reduced functionality. Not because the KDE developers are evil, but because they are offered no alternatives to systemd. Take fx. the new KDE login manager; KDE simply couldn't afford spending developers so that it also supported the rather broken and bit-rotting ConsoleKit. And nobody else has stepped up and offered help.

Sure you can use another login manager, but it is just an example on how bit by bit, non-systemd distro will have to step up and start doing their own development in order to have functional software. Networking and ntp DE modules, and log viewers, etc. will all be systemd based, with no common alternative in sight.

Gnome developers have warned for years about current problems; systemd offers really good and compelling features that can enhance their DE, while non-systemd distros doesn't. And because non-systemd distros seems to be sticking their head in ground and denying the reality that status quo can't be maintained, they don't offer any help at all. In fact, snarky remarks and vague conspiracy insults are all they are getting.

Re:... and with systemd. (1)

Tailhook (98486) | about 4 months ago | (#47206273)

I bet they'll have to support RHEL6 for many and many years

Red Hat is committed to supporting RHEL6 until Nov. 2020, and Nov. 2023 with extended support, nearly 9 more years,. What, exactly, is your point?

Long term support is one of the appeals of Red Hat..... they get paid for it.

Some nice looking features/updates (4, Funny)

B5_geek (638928) | about 4 months ago | (#47205269)

I have always admired RH for it's feature set and pursuit of enterprise-related features.
I do however have one gripe: All the config files are in the wrong place!
This isn't a real complaint, more akin to a whine. I have been using Debian for too many years on far too many servers; my muscle memory demands that the config files that I need to edit be located in the same place across distros.
Does anybody know why there is such a difference in file locations? /etc/network/interfaces
vs /etc/sysconfig/network/networking/where/are/the/damn/config/files

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47205401)

Because some people like /etc/network/interfaces and some people like /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/. When you can fork the software people tend to start putting things where they want. You prefer the first, I the latter, as I have been working on systems with it for 14 years.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205417)

More people uses the other one, Red Hat should learn and get in line with the de-facto standard.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#47206005)

Except, when it comes to Enterprise, Red Hat is the standard.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206265)

In the distributed world Red Hat is the standard. In the financial world (System z) SLES is the standard, Red Hat lags behind.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205427)

When you cant win, ad hominem.

Yes, I believe that is the accepted method of conceding defeat on slashdot.

Asshole.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (2)

jandrese (485) | about 4 months ago | (#47205533)

I prefer /etc/rc.conf personally. I'm not sure why every interface needs its own config file.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205589)

It's much easier to handle large scale automation when you're using separate files.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

B5_geek (638928) | about 4 months ago | (#47205595)

Since I have have started seriously working on BSD systems I have enjoyed the simplicity/straight-forwardness of it's configuration setup. The only thing that keeps me from switching to OpenBSD for all my servers: apt-get dist-upgrade

I have only been bitten in the ass once by this (15'ish years ago), and it makes keeping the system updated so easy.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (3, Insightful)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 4 months ago | (#47205521)

I have always admired RH for it's feature set and pursuit of enterprise-related features.
I do however have one gripe: All the config files are in the wrong place!
This isn't a real complaint, more akin to a whine. I have been using Debian for too many years on far too many servers; my muscle memory demands that the config files that I need to edit be located in the same place across distros.
Does anybody know why there is such a difference in file locations? /etc/network/interfaces
vs /etc/sysconfig/network/networking/where/are/the/damn/config/files

I think the differences are just the normal fragmentation between different distros, with everyone having their own idea of the "correct" place to put the config files. The systemd project is trying to establish a cross distro standard for some of the important config files, making it easier for upstream projects to know where e.g. /etc/os-release is (on non-systemd distros it can be "hidden" almost everywhere).

Systemd is the most important new feature of RHEL 7, since the core of the OS now have been making a huge leap forward in security and reliability regarding processes and deamons. It is now a piece of cake to utilize advanced kernel features like "capabilities" http://man7.org/linux/man-page... [man7.org] and "cgroup" https://www.kernel.org/doc/Doc... [kernel.org]

All major distros are about to change to "systemd"; Red Hat, Suse, Ubuntu, Debian. Their derivatives like CentOS, Sci-Linux, Fedora etc. are also changing to systemd, so in a few years, systemd will simply be the new standard toolbox to maintain and run Linux distros, and part of the new future Linux development stack; systemd, Wayland, cgroups and kdbus.

So every Linux System Administrator who have been to procrastinating regarding learning systemd, better start reading up on the subject. A good place to start is : http://www.freedesktop.org/wik... [freedesktop.org]

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47205633)

How much did Lennart pay you? 8)

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 4 months ago | (#47205841)

How much did Lennart pay you? 8)

Hey, lets look at your sig:

--
When you cant win, ad hominem.

Had you forgotten all about your own sig?

This is exactly why systemd detractors have lost every technical argument and lost out on all major Linux distros; you are wasting time on negative campaigning against systemd instead of getting off your asses and start coding alternatives.

You have lost wholesale to systemd because you wasted time smearing open source developers like Poettering behind your anonymous handles instead of working.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206051)

Be that as it may, it doesn't change the fact that systemd MOAR LIEK SYSTEM DICK LOLOLOL

Bitches can't keep their services or panties up, yo.

registryd (1)

Nikademus (631739) | about 4 months ago | (#47206181)

Will registryd be part of systemd soon? I can't wait having some centralized binary configuration only readable by systemd utilities.

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205843)

If you are using the right distribution it's of course /etc/rc.d/rc.inet1.conf

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

shadowknot (853491) | about 4 months ago | (#47206289)

Amen to that, all hail Bob!

Re:Some nice looking features/updates (1)

Cramer (69040) | about 4 months ago | (#47206213)

It's like that because that's simply where they each "do their thing". Redhat was around long before debian, so the question should be "why did debian change it?" Redhat did it that way to simplify automation and deployment -- one config file per interface isolates interface configurations, and makes parsing far simpler. (if you need to setup or know anything about eth0, it's one file, and everything in it pertains to eth0.)

Not the same LXC (1)

DeHackEd (159723) | about 4 months ago | (#47205281)

There's two projects named "lxc" - the one linked in the article ( https://linuxcontainers.org/ [linuxcontainers.org] ) and one that's part of libvirt as a hypervisor driver. RHEL 7 includes the latter.

Now, time to download it and see how much has changed since the RC.

Re:Not the same LXC (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205373)

Maybe I'm missing something but what good is the libvirt driver if you don't have anything to connect it to?

Re:Not the same LXC (2)

DeHackEd (159723) | about 4 months ago | (#47205579)

I guess I didn't explain that very well.

Libvirt provides its own container launcher under the name "lxc". As I understand it this software is developped and maintained with libvirt. This is different software from the standalone project known as "LXC" as linked in the article.

Very excited announcement (1)

NaCh0 (6124) | about 4 months ago | (#47205299)

Their use of bold and italics in the announcement makes me feel like I'm reading an old John C Dvorak pcmag column.

Good and bad... (1)

Junta (36770) | about 4 months ago | (#47205315)

XFS and PCP are good things to include.

systemd and OpenLMI I find worrisome. systemd being the one impossible to ignore so OpenLMI at least gets something of a pass for the ability to totally ignore it.

systemd has been hashed out time and time again, but OpenLMI is something rarely discussed. DMTF has championed CIM for eons, and the architecture shows in that it clearly defines things as you would see a buzzword compliant enterprise define an architecture amidst the dotcom boom of the late 90s (complete with XML over SOAP and all sorts of other nastiness). It represents drinking the kool-aid after much of the ecosystem has moved on (microsoft has de-emphasized CIM, many of the enterprise vendors that once always provided and demanded CIM providers have come around to a viewpoint that CIM style instrumentation isn't perhaps the best idea).

Re:Good and bad... (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 4 months ago | (#47205407)

systemd is nice since it can keep your services running, alert you to problems, and tell you why they failed when there's no logs coming out.

Re:Good and bad... (4, Insightful)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47205451)

Systemd is not nice because it does all that stuff. Init is not supposed to do all that stuff, because it makes it bulky, gives additional avenues of attack, and is just all around a pain. What would have been better would have been to make systemd a modular system so that if you want it to handle all that, it can, but if you dont, it just does the parallel start up.

Re:Good and bad... (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47205735)

funny I can do a parallel start up with init script if I really wanted to, don't need fancy bloated startup/system/session manager

Re:Good and bad... (1)

thaylin (555395) | about 4 months ago | (#47205759)

hey I am with you, just saying the bloatware that is systemd is not needed, and in my case not wanted.

Re:Good and bad... (1)

Peter H.S. (38077) | about 4 months ago | (#47205999)

Systemd is not nice because it does all that stuff. Init is not supposed to do all that stuff, because it makes it bulky, gives additional avenues of attack, and is just all around a pain. What would have been better would have been to make systemd a modular system so that if you want it to handle all that, it can, but if you dont, it just does the parallel start up.

This just wrong; systemd dramatically increases security by eg. making use of "Kernel Capabilities", sand-boxing deamons so that privilege escalation is impossible, or forking etc. It also makes it a breeze to use cgroup, making it easy to control system resources to keep the system up and stable in case of DoS'ing, it has rate limiting, and a total supervising chain of all processes and deamons, including itself, etc. etc.

It is also very modular. For some reason systemd-detractors keep on saying that systemd isn't modular, even though a simple look at the source files could have told them otherwise. At the same time they also accuse systemd for being too modular, in that since systemd runs as PID1, it can utilize advanced kernel features like cgroup and let other modular parts of systemd (like logind), or third party deamons take advantage of that.

Re:Good and bad... (2)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#47206029)

init IS supposed to know whether services are running and restart them if they fail or exit. It used to do that way back when; you would edit /etc/inittab to specify what runs at which runlevel. Unfortunately /etc/inittab was sufficiently crap that all sorts of things were pushed into shell scripts instead, which lost the the ability to recover from failed services. Then you could install Monit and edit those shell scripts to get that ability back, but every time you upgrade you have to check whether your edits survived. Not nice.

A replacement for init was sorely needed.

tight coupling (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205757)

systemd is nice since it can keep your services running, alert you to problems, and tell you why they failed when there's no logs coming out.

I already have an alerting system, and if a process crashes I (more often than not) want it to stay down until I can go in and see why it died.

I'm sure having the functionality there is nice, and I'm hoping it's turned off by default, but systemd seems to be adding many, many features that seem all tightly coupled to each other. It's this last point that annoys me the most: the tight coupling.

Re:Good and bad... (1)

thule (9041) | about 4 months ago | (#47205791)

Microsoft de-emphasized CIM? DSC (Desired State Configuration) is entirely based on CIM. It works by creating CIM objects with Powershell. It will create a corresponding .mof file from the provider written in Powershell. Once you have the mof and the provider, the provider can be called from Powershell. DSC will manage the state of the provider based on the parameters passed by the configuration script.

MIcrosofties where I work are all excited about DSC. I think they think is Chef/Puppet for Windows. I don't know that they understand that Chef/Puppet do much more than handle providers. If anything Chef/Puppet would use the CIM objects created with DSC. CIM abstracts the complexity of changing the configuration of Windows. Microsoft provided CIM configuration objects are a huge win for scripting configurations!

I'm not sure that the OMI people envisioned large configuration scripts being called through CIM. It would be like configuring an OS via SNMP. SNMP would be the mechanism to call scripts on a remote machine (net-snmp can do this). You could do it, but why? MS could just have easily exposed the objects directly without going through CIM. The advantage I suppose is that OMI provides an open transport to call CIM objects. Only problem, Microsoft uses WS-Management, not WBEM.

Guess it depends on situation... (1)

Junta (36770) | about 4 months ago | (#47206229)

I will say I didn't mess with DSC, but a lot of the .NET calls no longer rely upon WMI working. WMI like sfcbd and Pegasus will completely cock up if a provider so much as looks at it funny. Previously, only utilities like ipconfig and stuff would keep working and any thing making WMI calls was just SOL. I noticed in one of the various scenarios where WMI had gone belly up that the calls I had moved to in .NET didn't mind at all for a lot of the stuff. Someone at MS suggested that WMI/CIM was being stepped around by design more and more over time, but it could be one portion of MS versus another.

timing is everything in PR (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205411)

handy timing - Docker 1.0 yesterday, RHEL 7 today

500 TB? (2)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47205527)

XFS on 64 bit linux can go to 8 EB for files and volumes, a tad bigger than 500TB. Did Red Hat cripple it (for a while they even charged extra for XFS!)

Re:500 TB? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205631)

Go with ZFS or ZFSonLinux and you wont need to worry about those sort of limits.

Re:500 TB? (1)

silas_moeckel (234313) | about 4 months ago | (#47206219)

Yea because having something with zero support is something people want on there enterprise grade servers. Do not get me wrong used ZFS on top of centos to scratch and itch here and there that does not mean I'm spooling it up in production for giggles.

Re:500 TB? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47206369)

oh really, for ZFSOnLInux have they made a notification system so spare pools can get used in event of failure? or how about the occasional runaway memory issues?

no support for FreeBSD systems in the Enterprise, other than hiring consultants

Re:500 TB? (1)

chuckymonkey (1059244) | about 4 months ago | (#47205743)

It's not what it's capable of, it's what's been tested and is supported. You can certainly go bigger if you want, but don't expect support.

Re:500 TB? (1)

iggymanz (596061) | about 4 months ago | (#47206247)

funny, a couple of their competitors have no such limitations. That is like Cisco charging you for switch port use

across IT shops across the nation (4, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 months ago | (#47205559)

C-Level: Red Hat has a new version of internet, we should install it.
PHB:right away! PM! Red hat has an OS! lets install it
PM: Of course! Engineering! how are we on the RHEL 7 project!?
Senior Engineer: I dont remember getting one did I give it to you?
Infrastructure group: you never approved our upgrade to RHEL 4 because it required Oracle downtime. You never agreed to the RHEL 3 upgrade because our proxy cant go down or the PHB cant get to facebook. We were told not to upgrade the RHEL 2 fileservers because the PHB keeps his motivational MP3's there. The only machine we have running RHEL6 is the one you made us install four days ago because you attended a webinar..so...i guess we'll have it upgraded by the end of the week.
PHB: whoa there pump your brakes guys...dont touch that server. if you take it offline i might not be able to get to the webinar next year!

Re:across IT shops across the nation (1)

Philip Mather (2889417) | about 4 months ago | (#47206203)

You've been on that Real Life ITIL 101 course as well huh? Did your certificate have little perforations at top and bottom as well?

40G ethernet (1)

banjer (2759777) | about 4 months ago | (#47205793)

From the overview PDF [redhat.com] :

Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 beta supports 40G Ethernet link speeds, which enables faster network communication for systems and applications.

What was the max supported link speed previously in RHEL 6...10G?

Re:40G ethernet (1)

amorsen (7485) | about 4 months ago | (#47206099)

RHEL 6.5 supports at least one 40Gbps ethernet driver (Mellanox). I have no idea whether it can achieve 40Gbps in practice, but it can certainly connect to a 40Gbps switch.

Re:40G ethernet (1)

Junta (36770) | about 4 months ago | (#47206151)

It can actually sustain 40 gb of throughput. All the tools report link accurately as well. I confess to have no idea why RHEL would call out 40 gb as 'new' since it has been around already...

Which kernel version? (1)

sentiblue (3535839) | about 4 months ago | (#47205821)

Has anybody gotten a confirmation whether kernel version 3.x is used in this release?

I read the press release from Redhat site but still didn't see any mention about it.

Re: Which kernel version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205887)

Yes. 3.10.something

Re:Which kernel version? (2)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205995)

It is 3.10. But keep in mind that this is only where Red Hat essentially forked their version. Each minor release adds major changes to the kernel, including both hardware support and new features.

Re:Which kernel version? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47206013)

https://git.centos.org/log/rpms!kernel.git/refs!heads!c7
kernel-3.10.0-123.1.2.el7

Re:Which kernel version? (1)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#47206057)

That's an easy one -

[armanox@rhel7test ~]$ uname -a
Linux rhel7test 3.10.0-123.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon May 5 11:16:57 EDT 2014 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

theguy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47205893)

Why to buy a Unix wannabe when you can get a full featured UNIX (Solaris) ?

Re:theguy (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47205967)

Because RHEL includes the source code, which can be kind of an important feature. But apart from that Solaris should be fine. They lost a lost of talent during the Oracle takeover, and I have a number of ZFS support incidents due to that; but to be honest things have been much better starting about a year ago.

Is this still a good OS for desktop? (1)

guacamole (24270) | about 4 months ago | (#47206007)

I really don't like the fast release cycle of many Linux distros, so I used to stick with CentOS or RHEL on my desktops as well. What about RHEL 7? By the way, what filesystem should be used on a laptop?

Re:Is this still a good OS for desktop? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 4 months ago | (#47206089)

I really don't like the fast release cycle of many Linux distros, so I used to stick with CentOS or RHEL on my desktops as well.

It's Gnome 3.8, which is a good desktop in my opinion. But you take some time should try it out yourself.

What about RHEL 7? By the way, what filesystem should be used on a laptop?

Any file system should be fine. Go with the default if you're not sure you want something else.

Re:Is this still a good OS for desktop? (2, Interesting)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#47206239)

Use ext4 for a laptop over the default, XFS. XFS is prone to data corruption when improperly shut down.

Reverting to init (3, Insightful)

hankypooh (1175467) | about 4 months ago | (#47206279)

Can one revert to init, rather than using systemd?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?