best os for DA

there are many nix? Which one is most suitable for DA? more stable? more solid? more faster? etc.

MBU

Try CentOS 5.x It's very stable, fast and solid. And if you want to have 64-bit OS - DirectAdmin only supports CentOS as 64-bit system.

Does centos use something like YUM to do it's updates? I assume since it uses something close to what would be called redhat enterprise Linux that it would be fairly easy to upgrade when needed? Vs Fedora or Debian?

Tauvo said:

Does centos use something like YUM to do it's updates? I assume since it uses something close to what would be called redhat enterprise Linux that it would be fairly easy to upgrade when needed? Vs Fedora or Debian?

Click to expand...

Yeah it uses Yum.

I still recommend CentOS 4.x

i already have a debian server. i have a little debian knowledge. but i dont know anything about centos. Is centos easy configurable? or centos's configuration is like debian?

is centos installation of DA easiest than debian installation of DA?

is centos server installation easiest than debian server?

MBU

DA works perfectly on centos...it's a fork of redhat linux and yes, it's easy to learn and manage too. (yes, a little different from debian...but not much, it's linux after all)

mbunal said:

i already have a debian server. i have a little debian knowledge. but i dont know anything about centos. Is centos easy configurable? or centos's configuration is like debian?

is centos installation of DA easiest than debian installation of DA?

is centos server installation easiest than debian server?

MBU

Click to expand...

As previously stated by other users on this thread, DA works great with CentOS. I too use CentOS 4.x (4.6 now) and it works fine for both 64bit and 32bit (with the respective CPU and OS of course).

I don't know why DA don't update the 64bit DA Install (from 4.1-4.4, and should change it to 4.1-4.6 64-bit) now that 4.6 is out with 64bit as well and to my understanding it works fine with DA (at least one of my servers is running with it with no problems).

Going back to DA and CentOS overall:

yum is the tool to use to install packages to CentOS.
It works great and I'm very happy with it.
I'm still using 4.x just because I feel more comfortable with the install GUI of 4.6 than of 5.x. The 5.x has a menu setting that I need to learn, but I'm lazzy and 4.x is going to stick around for few more years:

http://centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=42


How long will CentOS-4 updates be supported?
We intend to support CentOS-4 updates until Feb 29, 2012.

The current plan is this:

Full Updates (including hardware updates): Currently to Feb 29, 2008

Maintenance Updates: Mar 1, 2008 to Feb 29, 2012


Full Updates - During the Full Updates phase, new hardware support will be provided at the discretion of CentOS via Update Sets. Additionally, all available and qualified errata will be provided via Update Sets (or individually {and immediately} for Security level errata.) Update Sets normally will be released 2-4 times per year, with new ISOs released as part of each Update Set. In the 4.x numbering scheme, the .x is the number of the Update Set.

Maintenance Updates - During the Maintenance updates phase, only Security errata and select mission critical bug fixes will be released. There will be few, if any, Update Sets released.


Once a server is up and running there is not much of change that will be needed except for security issues of course.
That is kept updated till 2012, so,. for the next 2-3 years, I'm not worried about any new surprises.
My hardware doens't care for 'support of new devices' as once it is up and running, that's it. I'm not adding new hardware that is 'not already recognized' (ususally that covers new motherboards or new NICs or memory types or CPUs, none of which will change on my existing servers).

Aside from that, if you can do Debian, you can certainly do Linux, and chances are that you will be very surprised to see it is very easy to learn (coming from Debian of course).

-Alon.

I prefer fedora , I have DA on FC3 without any problems with os any way Fedora is very like centos , and if you want to chose one I think fc5 is the best

I try to shy away from Fedora for production servers.
There shouldn't be any difference in performance or other issues being them both RH derivitives, but as Fedora is not considered production, but for development and experimental, why put your server at a possible risk of a failing module?
There is no added value to use Fedora for a production box, whereas with CentOS it is compiled of RH Enterprise production code without the experimental portion.
They (Fedora/Centos) have the same looks and feel under SSH access, so I can never figure out why would anyone would want to run a production server on an experimental build, especially when you have a free version of the full production quality build (i.e., CentOS).

Just my $0.02 (now I use Canadian as it is worth more ).

-Alon.

CentOS 5 by far.

I have used CentOS 4, but if you're starting from scratch, CentOS 5 is the go.

Of course if you're more familiar with Debian, it may be best to go with it.

However, as I've mentioned before, in other threads easily found by searching these forums for which OS is best ...

DirectAdmin is first written on CentOS; DirectAdmin for every other system is a port.

Jeff

I think you should use the os/distribution (if supported) you are most
familiar with. Of course DA is first written on Centos, but if you are
using eg. freebsd for many years i should stick with it.

We have used DA on freebsd for many years now and had no problems with it.

FreeBSD 32 bit - flight normal .Over 2 years.

I like CentOS and Fedora very well also all my systems are very stable with DA.

I've seen best results with Debian

I haven't tried DirectAdmin on Debian yet, but I have to report it works great on Fedora Core 6 and CentOS 4 and 5, all of which I have used DirectAdmin on. I guess CentOS 5 is the best out of them though.

windows 3.1

I simply cannot believe that there's only one previous vote for FreeBSD!

DA works beautifully on CentOS, but with CentOS you need to keep rebooting your server every month normally for kernel updates and to stop your filesystems locking up eventually.

DA with FreeBSD does require knowledge of FreeBSD to set it up, but once it's set, the server can sit for months on end running beautifully.

suhailc said:

I simply cannot believe that there's only one previous vote for FreeBSD!

DA works beautifully on CentOS, but with CentOS you need to keep rebooting your server every month normally for kernel updates and to stop your filesystems locking up eventually.

DA with FreeBSD does require knowledge of FreeBSD to set it up, but once it's set, the server can sit for months on end running beautifully.

Click to expand...

I don't know how FreeBSD overcomes the no need to reboot to switch to a new kernel, very interesting.