Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-project (240 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-project] larger openSUSE deployments?
Dear Agustin,

well, call it the usual suspects ;-) e.g. stability and long term
commitment. Check out Ubuntu LTS projects to get an idea. Please don't
get me wrong - I'm still commited to openSUSE in every respect. On a
large part due to me being here since 1997 at least (as one of the SuSE
beta tester), the KDE(3) support, and finally, I don't like the debian
way of building packages.

But I do note, that the openSUSE project is cleft in so many small
areas, that in the end, it is nearly unpossible to concentrate their
attainments in stable products again.

Linux would be nowhere today without some kind of benevolent
dictatorship, and that seems to be missing here (well, sure,
controlling a software project is easier than controlling a
distribution of some such.., especially when driven by community effort
at large). Shuttleworth seems to get this right.

While at it: I really appreciate the deferred release of 12.2 - and
would see this as a call to the participating parties to relax the
release policy in a way, that is able to finally raise stability of the
released product. I still have one asterisk system running on top of
the unbeatable solidness of SuSE 9.3 with a current uptime of 787 days
and 2 hours. Well, these times are gone. Today, the development pace of
many important projects is simply too big, where coding is done much
faster, than testing of many aspects is even possible.

In the middle and long run, some kind of artifical deceleration needs to
be established, and more conservative rules in order to allow
publishing stable releases. Those, that want/need to live on the
bleeding edge will choose rolling release products/distributions
anyway.

Pete

Am Thursday 26 July 2012 11:07:23 schrieb Agustin Benito Bethencourt:
Hi Hans-Peter,

in terms of management, what are the improvements you would like to
see in openSUSE that would have a bigger impact in your everyday work
as administrator of this deployment?

On Monday 23 July 2012 19:48:35 Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
Dear Ludwig,

Am Wednesday 11 July 2012 09:28:15 schrieb Ludwig Nussel:
Hi,

I'm currently investigating whether and how openSUSE is used in
larger deployments. Does anyone know someone who manages like
let's say 30 or more openSUSE machines at once? I'm interested in
e.g. what tools are used in such a scenario and what rough edges
in the distro we maybe have that could be improved.

I'm responsible for an installation with 30 clients and two servers
in a transport company, everything is (still) openSUSE driven
(apart from a bunch of VMware XP vm's running ontop).

_All_ clients are diskless, a kiwi setup is tweaked to cope/use the
aufs2 patched kernel. It's a real pity, that the kernel team opted
for outphasing aufs a long time ago. It's still the stablest
solution, when it comes to run nfs3 based diskless full featured
desktops (including XP under VMware).

The client distibution is installed with a python script, that runs
zypper, applies some patches, and prepares the clients layer. The
installation target is a nfs exported directory on the server, each
client runs on his own rw filesystem layer ontop. That way, I can
easily manage/modify every client on his own without affecting
others, while still being able to apply updates in a single place
once and for all.

Since we use multihead setups (up to _3_ * 24' heads), we selected
nvidia as our favorized gpu, driven by the closed source drivers (a
decision made back in 2005).

A single, but pretty important win32 module is driven by wine to
access a transport trading exchange (Timocom).

We still use 11.1 and KDE3. Unfortunately, the KDE team has lost
track, when it comes to business users needs (imap is not
integrated in desktop search engines, kaddressbook is neither
company aware (one company to many individuals, nor branch aware),
and lacks a sql database backend. kmail is full of minor issues in
such a setting.

We had a couple of very nagging LibreOffice issues, and still have
some.

Let me note, that this setup is the third one in a row, both
predecessors were SuSE based, too, and the immediate one was aufs
based already. The first one dates back to 1999.

It biggest advantage of this setup is flexibility, while managing
it is pretty lightweight. Adding or exchanging systems is done in a
few seconds. Automatic X setup is flaky, hence multihead setup has
to be done manually. I fear, that the sax2-less versions will
further complicate this issue.

Changing things has to be done very conservatively, since such an
environment doesn't tolerate a lot of experimenting, and time is
constrained. For that reason, the short release cycles of openSUSE
are a real pain. OTOH, the advantage of the professional desktop
products isn't that big, given the many deviations from the
original product over time.

Back in 2.4 times, we had setups, that were rock solid - desktops
running diskless for month without reboot, including VMware vm's.

Generally, I notice decreasing long term stability in a lot of
areas, that really disturb me and that prepare the fields for
Redmonds takeover.

Cheers,
Pete

--
Agustin Benito Bethencourt
openSUSE Team Lead at SUSE
abebe@xxxxxxxx


--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, email: opensuse-project+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups