Should I upgrade RH9 to FC3?
 

I have a RH9 machine at home hosting some websites and a game server (Counter Strike Source) thats running like a well oiled Rolls Royce. I am starting to think that it would be a good decision (not necessarily wise) to upgrade the machine to run Fedora Core 3 as there are many new features that I would benefit from (e.g. new versions of mysql and apache).

Now the question is this, should I upgrade the operating system to FC3 or not? What do you people think?

If you are using a web server, then yes, you can benefit greatly from the increased security that SELinux provides. See the Fedora SELinux FAQ and the Apache SELinux FAQ.

If you're comfortable with RH9, you'll have an easy time with FC3. I also started with RH9 about a year ago before subsequently using FC2 and FC3. I found FC3 to be the easiest setup of the three, although RH9 was more of a learning experience so it may not be as hard as I once thought.

I'd say go for it if you're considering it. The differences between them are minimal and I personally like FC3 better.

Another question; prior to the upgrade the mysql databases that are on my RH9 machine need to be backed up and restored onto the newly created FC3 machine. How would I go about doing this? Any links you can point me to?

Backing up a mySQL DB is simple:

/usr/bin/mysqldump --opt --all-databases --user=root --password=rootPassword > /root/backup.sql

Then restore it on the new system with:

/usr/bin/mysql -u root --password=rootPassword < /root/backup.sql

Excellent! Thanks for the help guys!

One last question, when I rebuild my machine with FC3, restore all backups, how would I go about creating a sh script so that it automates backups on a nightly basis. I.E. I want to zip the /usr/downloads directory to the <year><month><day><time>downloads.zip (e.g. 200503300400downloads.zip) file to /usr/backup 4am every day.

How would I use this script with cron?

One last question; does FC3 consume more system resources than what RH9 does? I.E. would it consume more RAM/HDD/CPU to do the same things as what RH9 would do?

Well, the 2.6 kernel makes better use of RAM, so it may appear to use more (unused RAM is wasted RAM). However, the 2.6 kernel is actually more efficient and will perform better than the 2.4 kernel with the same amount of memory.

FC3, with a default installation will use more HDD space than RH9, simply because more software is included. You can trim out unused package groups or applications with a custom installation. If you later change your mind, the yum command can install package groups and individual packages.

The 2.6 kernel is overall more efficient than the 2.4 kernel (improved algorithms, memory management, I/O subsystems), so the CPU consumed by the OS itself should be reduced, leaving more resources for applications.

The one thing you may not be looking at is this: The 2.4.x series is time tested, while the 2.6.x series is still new and is not stable yet. People claim it is, but it is going through active development (why couldn't they leave a good development process intact? Keep the development in an odd series!) and I frequently see advisories on vulnerabilities with the 2.6.x kernel series.

At the bare minimum you need to subscribe to research group's advisories through RSS feeds or sign up with an email address so you will be kept up to date. Here is a URL to Secunia.com's advisories on the 2.6.x kernel series: http://secunia.com/product/2719/

Here is the URL for the 2.4 series: http://secunia.com/product/763/

Make sure you weigh the pros/cons of your decision thoroughly. Unfortunately FC1 was the last distro from RH that used the 2.4.x kernel. If you want to stick with a RH distro, going with FC3 and the 2.6 kernel might be your only option besides a commercial product.

I've used Fedora Core 1 since it came out and it's been an excellent product. Best of luck with your choice.

sorry to bump this tread , but..........
 

hi
I am thinking of upgrading from RH9 to fedora 4
can one upgrade straight to the new version
or would it be better to step up one at a time , a'la , fedora 1 , then fedora 2 , etc
has anyone done this?
had any problems with the installation?
anything to be wary of?
any issues or concerns to be worried about?

I've heard of rh9 to f1 having some glitches
some f1 tof2 having some workarounds

just wanting some advice and cautions if ya'll wouldn't mind

thanks

Patooeee !!!! I see this line of thought all the time on the Slack forums.
2.6 *IS* as stable as 2.4/2.5. If you don't want to hang your gonads in the breeze, stay away from the rc and mm lines.
The predominant reason Linus (apparently) gave the even/odd scenario away was because the "big guys" (I read that as Mandrake/RH) kept rolling development from the 2.5 stream into their "stable" builds.
It wasn't pure 2.4, and it wasn't "unstable" - i.e. they were doing what is currently done in 2.6.

BTW I'm not dissing deoren - I just think we have to stay with the times.
And the tracking of advisories is, of course, excellent advice.

I disagree and refer back to my previous comments. Since I made that post I've seen several advisories released for the 2.6 kernel and very few for the 2.4.

The 2.4 kernel has stabalized immensely since 2.6 has been released because of various reasons. The foremost being the kernel developers have a new branch to work with.

Torvalds himself has stated that they're introducing features directly into the 2.6 line because they can add features faster that way. This was cited as a way to get new device support into the kernel quicker.

This is because industry has adopted the 2.6 line as the current stable branch because of user demand.

It has many improvements in terms of scalability and performance including the use of NPTL compared to pthreads in 2.4.

Those are known as vendor kernels. Most of the patching that Mandrake/RH did stayed with their vendor kernels and were not passed upstream to be added to the Vanilla Kernel.

I disagree. The Vanilla Kernel was the one released by the official kernel maintainers while vendors released their own.

A popular example is Red Hat adding NPTL support in their 2.4 vendor kernel. This was present in Fedora Core 1 and perhaps earlier, I don't know. Red Hat backported NPTL from the 2.5 development line. This seemed to be pretty common and still is.

Torvalds was asked his thoughts concerning vendors backporting features and he thought it was a good idea. I don't have a link for you, but a bit of Google searching ought to turn it up.

Perhaps you meant using a 2.6 kernel versus a 2.4?

In their haste to get features added quickly, kernel developers are using the 2.6 line as their stable/development line.

As such, it is not stable anymore. This is why I recommend anyone running a server setup stick with a 2.4 kernel until Torvalds branches into 2.7. Give about 6 months for things to settle down some and then perhaps migrate to 2.6.

Granted most of the vulnerabilities are local exploits, but the frequency at which they are identifying vulnerabilities is unsettling. This is not a good indication of quality, but another indication of how quickly code is being added without the full gamut of testing being done.

Right now it's not worth it unless you have hardware that just won't run with a 2.4 kernel: You'll be replacing kernels pretty often otherwise. I'd rather run with a feature stable kernel that is still under support for security and driver fixes.

Re: sorry to bump this tread , but..........
 

There is no need to "chain" them together like that. I believe FC4 will upgrade your RH9 install to FC4. Like you mentioned though you may have a few quirks with the process.

The best thing to do is backup your current install and if it doesn't work roll back to what you had.

Is it a server box or just one you're using as a desktop? If a desktop and you don't have anything really important just make sure to backup your home directory.

If you want some tips on backing the drive up post back and I can show you how.

Re: Should I upgrade RH9 to FC3?
 

A classical Linux saying:

"If it ain't broken,
don't fix it."

yes it is a desktop
and i would appreciate knowing how to back up my my directories

thank you