Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.

CentOS 7 Released

posted by janrinok on Tuesday July 08 2014, @10:51AM   Printer-friendly
from the just-for-info dept.

joekiser writes:

After weeks of testing, CentOS 7 has been released. For a list of RELEASE NOTES, please see the Wiki.

CentOS falls in line with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7, released just 26 days ago. It is also worth noting that an ALPHA release of Scientific Linux 7.0 is also available for testing.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
CentOS 7 Released | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 18 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:25PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday July 08 2014, @08:25PM (#66167) Journal

    XFS was "ported to the Linux kernel in 2001", the same time Ext3, Reiserfs, JFS, and others showed-up. Why was Ext3 or Ext4 ever even used, then, only to be demoted later for something that's always been around?

    As I recall, XFS was a lot less mature back then, and the safe route was EXT2/3/4. Remember it had just hit the GPL in 2000.

    (I also seem to recall XFS back in those days was aimed toward a specific category of file sizes, and usage patterns.)

    Its ADDITION, not SUBTRACTION. You can still use what ever you want.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 2) by ancientt on Wednesday July 09 2014, @04:34PM

    by ancientt (40) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Wednesday July 09 2014, @04:34PM (#66601) Homepage Journal

    You've hit the nail on the head. I looked into this with RHEL 7 release and found out that they did it because they are seeing a lot more installs that have better performance using XFS. You can still use any of a dozen other filesystems, but they switched to XFS because it is what the most customers would benefit from. The flipside to this is that it is only really better for people managing large file systems with large IO and pretty robust CPU, so it may be better for the average RHEL customer but not better for the average CentOS user.

    Which comes with the territory, if you want to be treated like a customer, you have to purchase something, but if you want to get the software benefits without paying for support, you have to figure this kind of thing out for yourself.

    From Redhat [redhat.com]:

    Another way to characterize this is that the Ext4 filesystem variants tend to perform better on systems that have limited I/O capability. Ext3 and Ext4 perform better on limited bandwidth (< 200MB/s) and up to ~1,000 iops capability. For anything with higher capability, XFS tends to be faster. XFS also consumes about twice the CPU-per-metadata operation compared to Ext3 and Ext4, so if you have a CPU-bound workload with little concurrency, then the Ext3 or Ext4 variants will be faster. In general Ext3 or Ext4 is better if an application uses a single read/write thread and small files, while XFS shines when an application uses multiple read/write threads and bigger files.

    The things that were hard for me to adjust to is not using /etc/init.d/whatever to manage processes, not having ifconfig or route and having to learn the equivilant ip commands and the new firewall manager. I'm really okay with the changes but it will take me some time to get used to. Of course you can probably manage to make it work like it used to if you really want, but I tend to do minimal installations and I want to use the recommended tools.

    --
    This post brought to you by Database Barbie