Cluster OSes range from pre-packaged/pre-bundled to roll-your-own. The roll-your-own crowd will continue to roll their own if they have the time/inclination. Commercial and production sites tend to prefer the packaged ("who can we call for support") variety due to the inherent risks in one-off type distributions. So I see several possible directions on the pre-packaged side: 1) Open source cluster OS distros 2) Customized "Consumer" distros 3) Commercial distros On the open source distro side, we have ROCKS going to RHEL 3 recompiled without RedHat logos. Not sure about support for this, but Glen Otero of Callident might be able to talk about commercial support of this. OSCAR is available, and should work across a number of distributions (RH, SUSE, etc). I see Warewulf as another quite intriguing possibility. Then there are the Clustermatic tools from Sandia and other similar "one-offs" to handle specific problems for their end users. Not usually broadly applicable. On the customized distro side, most folks seem likely to use SUSE/RH as these have the largest installed base, someone to complain to if stuff doesnt work. Commercial codes are usually tested against RH and SUSE, so this gives you some assurances that it will work. The customized route is somewhat more dangerous/daunting in that the support model is ill defined except for the xCAT distro. There are few big companies backing the distribution method, installation method, etc. On the commercial side, you have things like Scyld and CLIC. Scyld is probably not the best for a biocluster, as it makes some assumptions on the interconnect. CLIC is based upon Mandrake, and past experience with that distro personally drove me to other distros. My problems had been with devfs, which is simply not stable enough to be used in a production environment. Crashes with devfs go from merely annoying to spectacular in the amount of collateral damage. Happily devfs is out (deprecated) as of 2.6 kernel. Sure, some will point out that the problem that it solves is an important one. Agreed. The implementation was terrible though, and the damage experienced was breathtaking. Many choices, little time. Given their good support of the x86_64, and the seemingly higher quality of beta experience, I am leaning towards the SUSE system at this time. Probably between RH WS and SUSE for most installs. Customer dependent of course, but I don't like support suprises. Given RH's ambivalence towards XFS, this will likely be biased in favor of SUSE. On top of SUSE, I will be trying OSCAR and Warewulf. Joe Chris Dagdigian wrote: > > Another item that has been on my mind recently... > > What are people doing about RedHat deciding to kill off their consumer > product line? Are people going to pay the freight for Redhat > Enterprise Linux or are people just going to use Suse/Debian/Gentoo etc. > > My needs are pretty simple but I'm having a hard time placing myself > into Redhat's current product plans. > > I need: > > 1. A stable OS with a product lifetime of at least 1 year (ideally 2+) > 2. Product errata, updates and security patches for full lifespan > 3. No OS or product phone/email support or SLA > > The RHL transition to Fedora Linux is fine but it sounds as if the OS > is going to change very fast (major updates 2-3 times per year). On > the plus side it is still free and the leaders seem committed to fast > errata and security updates. Still I can't see using this on a > production cluster due to the pace of change and the chance that I'd > be left without updates if I froze on a particular Fedora release. > > I can justify (maybe) the cost for the $125 product (Redhat WS) that > they are pitching towards compute clusters. The update services and > 5-year product lifespan is worth paying for. The big question for me > is what do I have to pay _after_ the initial $125 purchase. I can't > seem to find any info on the Redhat website telling me how much I'll > have to pay for updates after my intial 1-year RedHat Network service > runs out. > > This also leaves the question of what RHEL flavor to run on cluster > head nodes, fileservers and database machines. $349 for RH ES could be > justified for a critical node but damn what if I want to run that > stuff on Opteron or Itanium or a node with 4CPUs? The cost for RH AS > (starting at $1400) is not justifiable to me. Putting a 'cheap' RHEL > flavor on a head node and manually compiling/updating/supporting > additional network services built by hand from source or .srpms may be > more of an operational headache than the cost savings justify. > > I'm torn right now between diving back into Gentoo/Debian or possibly > jumping on the Suse bandwagon given their existing support for Opteron > etc. Novell just bought Suse today so who knows what that is going to do. > > I'd be interested in knowing how current RHL users are planning the > transition and how future cluster buyers are changing their plans. > Personally I think I'm going to need to stay on top of RHEL for > project that demand it while also maintaining some sort of deep > familiarity with one or more alternatives. > > -Chris > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bioclusters maillist - Bioclusters at bioinformatics.org > https://bioinformatics.org/mailman/listinfo/bioclusters -- Joseph Landman, Ph.D Scalable Informatics LLC, email: landman at scalableinformatics.com web : http://scalableinformatics.com phone: +1 734 612 4615