Robert G. Brown wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Mike Davis wrote:
My experience is similar to Bill's. We've been using CentOs 3,4 for
the past few years on our larger clusters. It is a good choice for
stability, good performance, and since it is RH for SW compatability.
The only thing I'd comment on that is negative about it is one of its
"advantages". There is a narrow line between stability and stagnation,
and you have to figure out which side of that line your cluster will
fall on. Specifically, the fact that Centos/RHEL is frozen for two year
intervals has two disadvantages for some people:
I don't see this as a problem in a production cluster. The fact is that
I've been doing this stuff for a little over two decades and I can build
anything that I need for an application. For me a manual library build
for CentOs 3 is easier than trying to find support for FC4 or
reinstalling FC 1x per year. My CentOs 3 nodes have had less than 2hours
downtime in 2 years and that was due to a Power Upgrade at their
location, that required a complete shutdown of all machines on the floor.
Now I should say, that I don't use diskless nodes, each node has its own
OS disk and most have a separate /tmp disk for scratch use. That is one
reason that we differ on OS, I believe.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
