Migrating to Debian

dahamsta

I manage a couple of Linux servers for a large firm down here in Cork. They currently have two Red Hat 7.3 boxes, so obviously it's time to upgrade or migrate. Like I said in another thread, I think Debian's the way to go, but I need to know how easy it's going to be to manage these servers if I migrate. Two questions:

1) Is Debian substantially different to Red Hat? The primary tasks for these boxes are Apache and MySQL, am I going to have any problems with these? Any hints or tips on migration? (I'll have a clean box to work on, I won't need to migrate in place.) Also, I may be running nameservers on Debian for them at some time in the future, how will this compare to Red Hat? Any issues here?

2) How do updates work on Debian? I don't run up2date automatically on Red Hat, but I want it to be as simple as Red Hat to update the machines: I want to login, run an up2date-like command to check what's new, and run another command to update the box. I don't want to be pissing around with manual lilo/grub updates and the like.

Any other tips, tricks or suggestions welcome.

Thanks,
adam

oscarBravo

Originally posted by dahamsta
1) Is Debian substantially different to Red Hat? The primary tasks for these boxes are Apache and MySQL, am I going to have any problems with these? Any hints or tips on migration? (I'll have a clean box to work on, I won't need to migrate in place.)

Shouldn't be any major problems. One thing to be aware of is the versions of the packages available in different distributions. Woody (the current "stable" version) has Apache 1.3.26, PHP 4.1.2 and MySQL 3.23.49; Sarge ("testing") and SiD ("unstable") have Apache 1.3.29, PHP 4.3.3 and MySQL 4.0.16. If you need newer software, testing is pretty good, but I believe it doesn't get security updates as often as stable and unstable. I'm running Sarge on my two servers and SiD on a couple of desktops - no problems whatsoever with stability with Sarge, but SiD sometimes gets a little flakey for a day or two after I update it - usually another update fixes it, when the package maintainer uploads a bugfix.

If the packages on Woody are up-to-date enough for you, go with it.

Also, I may be running nameservers on Debian for them at some time in the future, how will this compare to Red Hat? Any issues here?

Don't think so.

2) How do updates work on Debian? I don't run up2date automatically on Red Hat, but I want it to be as simple as Red Hat to update the machines: I want to login, run an up2date-like command to check what's new, and run another command to update the box. I don't want to be pissing around with manual lilo/grub updates and the like.

apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade

tomk

Worth noting that Sarge is very close to becoming the "stable" release. And seeing as you mention it:

Originally posted by dahamsta
I don't want to be pissing around with manual lilo/grub updates......

It's your own preference, of course, but Debian's default boot loader is lilo - I always change over to grub after install.

flamegrill

Adam,

it'll be a piece of piss.

Apache/mysql/bind are daemons that are third party to all distributions.

I'd suggest www.apachetoolbox.com for Apache, and just use the stock bind/mysql from Debian.

You can copy the configs practially with just a few changes from Apache, bind is a straigt copy save the directory locations, which may vary.

service stop mysqld on the redhat boxen
cd /var/lib/mysql/
tar -zcpf /home/mysql-backup.tar.gz ./

On the new machine just untar it, and make sure the perms are ok. You'll have the exact same user/passwords etc.

Fairly simple to migrate

Paul

po0k

Originally posted by oscarBravo
apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade

These two commands are reason enough to warrant a test box running Debian at least

dahamsta

Originally posted by flamegrill
Apache/mysql/bind are daemons that are third party to all distributions.

Uh, I'm confused Paul: Did you think I didn't know what what Apache, MySQL and Bind were or something?

Originally posted by SyxPak
These two commands are reason enough to warrant a test box running Debian at least

They're available on a Red Hat box running apt too. <shrug>

This post on CLUG brings up some interesting points on installation that I'm surprised haven't come up. Surely installation is a factor for posters here?

adam

oscarBravo

Originally posted by dahamsta
They're available on a Red Hat box running apt too. <shrug>

From what I gather, there is no one source for rpms that's as comprehensive as what Debian offers.

This post on CLUG brings up some interesting points on installation that I'm surprised haven't come up. Surely installation is a factor for posters here?

Frankly, I don't think it's as difficult as that post makes out, and I have Debian on four out of five of my PCs, including a Vaio Picturebook. I'm not a Linux guru by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no way I can find of Debian leaving you with a fully functional working system and an X login with all the toys installed like RH does.

I don't think that's quite true, although I confess to being someone who prefers to start with a minimal install and only apt-get what I need. Anyway, the new Debian-Installer hit beta2 recently, and I believe it answers most of those concerns, including hardware detection (using discover, I think - not sure). Assuming you want to go with Sarge, of course.

But I've never taken a Debian box through a kernel upgrade.

I have, several times. It doesn't get much easier than "apt-get install kernel-image-2.6.0-1-k7".

flamegrill

Originally posted by dahamsta
Uh, I'm confused Paul: Did you think I didn't know what what Apache, MySQL and Bind were or something?

Nah, just pointing out to everyone that the distro isn't really important. And that most of the programs people use are the same on each distro.

This post on CLUG brings up some interesting points on installation that I'm surprised haven't come up. Surely installation is a factor for posters here?

Why is the installation a factor? IMO any linux is way easier than some the likes of netbsd etc to install. Debian isn't that bad to install, you just need to be switched on. That being said I wouldn't touch it with a big pointy stick

I never liked Debian, nor did I like redhat, till I met up with a certain hoster and took over sysadmin of the systems and migrated accross various hardware platforms and found redhat being the easiest to deal with.

Just one question Adam, why would you consider debian? Why not go the Fedora Core route or whitebox linux ? Whitebox is a good choice, as its based on Redhat enterprise, and will apparently have very long release cycles, such as the current one will have updates till 2008 or something. We are going down the whitebox route from here on in, once we convince the control panel people to port it over

Paul