Is 9.04 server stable for production?

[alecm3]

I am installing new IBM x3550 M2 Xeon 5500-based servers, and 8.04 TLS does not install on this hardware: it's too new (I posted the details in http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1219514 ).

9.04 installs however, so I am stuck with 9.04. Do you recommend 9.04 for production? Is it stable?

I am going to be running custom Python TCP servers on these boxes, and nothing else (no Apache, nothing). I will choose ReiserFS, but my disk I/O is minimal for this applications- the servers are CPU bound.

Otherwise, I'd have to choose SuSE, but I am not looking forward towards maintaining multiple distribitions, since I already have a lot of 8.04 LTS nodes to maintain.

[Vegan]

My setup is operational. I use 9.04 with the 2.6.30 kernel fine. Mind you I only use a limited set of applications.

LAMP, SAMBA, development tools

[Thirtysixway]

I say 9.04 is stable since it receives security updates and all of that. Personally I run 8.04 for my server since it's LTS. Less OS upgrading means less worries about things breaking.

The only issue will be when it comes time for 9.04's end of life. You'll have to upgrade slightly more often than if you were on 8.04, at least until you get to the next LTS which should support your hardware.

Hopefully the upgrade after 9.04 EOL won't break your custom application.

[cariboo907]

If you are going to use 9.04, I would suggest you use some other file system than ext4, there have been some problems with data loss, and just in case, I would go with something else. I personally use ext3 for a 10Gb / and the rest of the partitions are formatted as xfs. According to this (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ext4_benchmarks&num=2) article xfs is almost as fast as ext4, and has been arond for a lot longer.

[alecm3]

The only issue will be when it comes time for 9.04's end of life. You'll have to upgrade slightly more often than if you were on 8.04, at least until you get to the next LTS which should support your hardware.
.

This is what I was interested in: what happens when 9.04 comes to it's end of life? Does apt-get install stop working for installation of new packages, or apt-get upgrade stops working for upgrading obsolete packages, or both things happen?

And yes, I am going to use ReiserFS, since it's rock-solid on our other nodes.

[cariboo907]

It's pretty easy to update to the next version, just run the following commands


sudo aptitude install update-manager-core
sudo do-release-upgrade


Before doing an upgrade make sure your server is totally up-to-date, then disable any third party repositories and ppas if you use then. The upgrade should run without a problem.

[Vegan]

I am sticking with ext3 simply as there is a Windows tool to read the disk. This way if the machine chokes, I can get my files off the disk easily.

Saves having to boot a CD to be able to mount a disk from a dead server.

Call me lazy, but ext3 seems to be fine. It has been default for quite a while. So why swerve from the usual.

[alecm3]

I am sticking with ext3 simply as there is a Windows tool to read the disk. This way if the machine chokes, I can get my files off the disk easily.

Saves having to boot a CD to be able to mount a disk from a dead server.

Call me lazy, but ext3 seems to be fine. It has been default for quite a while. So why swerve from the usual.

We have more than 32,000 files in a single directory on some nodes (and this cannot be changed), so we can only use ext4 or reiserFS, and I think ReiserFS is still a better choice of the two.

I am still curious how apt-get install and apt-get update commands work after the end of life of 9.04, if I chose not to upgrade to the next LTS (since that would require downtime)?

[Stickiler]

I am still curious how apt-get install and apt-get update commands work after the end of life of 9.04, if I chose not to upgrade to the next LTS (since that would require downtime)?
why wouldn't those commands still work???? the repositories they read from still exist, the files are still there.

[tubezninja]

My setup is operational. I use 9.04 with the 2.6.30 kernel fine. Mind you I only use a limited set of applications.

LAMP, SAMBA, development tools


I've used 9.04 for LAMP, SMB, SSHFS, python, and some data mining/data carving applications. 9.04 is plenty stable. I upgraded to it one some non-critical servers on release day, and then quickly spread out to other servers that for various reasons, needed the latest and greatest. They've all been running fine. Some have even had ext4 since the RC release, and haven't experienced data loss.

You mentioned ReiserFS. This is just my opinion, but I trust ext4 more than I do ReiserFS. I've had a few data loss and filesystem corruption incidents with ReiserFS while so far, I've had none with ext4. Of course your experience may differ, so either way you go, definitely back up your data.



Only drawback to 9.04 is the reduced support period. If you're keeping this server for longer than 18 months, you'll want to upgrade to the next LTS when it comes out. And if you want ext4, then I'd recommend 9.10 when it comes out, as it appears that there will be greater stability.

I am still curious how apt-get install and apt-get update commands work after the end of life of 9.04, if I chose not to upgrade to the next LTS (since that would require downtime)?

They won't. Once security and software updates stop for 9.04, you will have to upgrade to continue to get updates. Most repositories will dump their packages for old and unsupported versions once support ends. They need the diskspace and bandwidth to support the current versions.

I wouldn't worry too much about downtime. I've done version upgrades plenty of times, and downtime is minimal. Usually the only downtime my users notice is when I reboot the machine (which I of course announce well in advance), and ubuntu server's boot time is plenty fast.

[Thirtysixway]

apt-get update and upgrade wouldn't work because there would no longer be any updates.