Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › Finally a good news.. [Debian] - Page 2
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Finally a good news.. [Debian]

2

Comments

  • FatGrizzlyFatGrizzly Member, Host Rep

    @sreekanth850 said:
    So nobody using Ubuntu LTS on production here?

    We don't use Ubuntu lts, I've used debian in past and it works, but then due to cPanel I shifted to RHEL based derivatives. But still debian wins

  • MMzFMMzF Member

    @varwww said:
    I am actually running Debian 12 as my main machine since the past 1 month. Everything works! :)

    Using test version is more fun then the stable one. :smiley:

  • MMzFMMzF Member

    @Nanja said:
    I hope there's a free web hosting panel that will work with it right on release o:)

    Hestiacp would work i believe

  • MMzFMMzF Member

    @sreekanth850 said:
    So nobody using Ubuntu LTS on production here?

    Ubuntu give lots of pain :/ troubleshooting etc made me switch to debian (enjoying from 14+ years)

  • sreekanth850sreekanth850 Member

    @FatGrizzly said:

    @sreekanth850 said:
    So nobody using Ubuntu LTS on production here?

    We don't use Ubuntu lts, I've used debian in past and it works, but then due to cPanel I shifted to RHEL based derivatives. But still debian wins

    Definitely Debian is rocksolid, but LTS is always good for production servers.

  • ralfralf Member

    In all seriousness, I don't actually understand why anybody would choose Ubuntu over Debian for a production machine. Maybe things have moved on now and base Ubuntu can be as lean as Debian, but I used to use Ubuntu because it was just Debian with enough extra stuff to make it work the desktop environment nicer to work with. But if you're running a headless server, you'd want that as stripped back as possible without all the extra junk that comes along with Ubuntu, so Debian base seems like the obvious choice.

  • sreekanth850sreekanth850 Member

    @ralf said:
    In all seriousness, I don't actually understand why anybody would choose Ubuntu over Debian for a production machine. Maybe things have moved on now and base Ubuntu can be as lean as Debian, but I used to use Ubuntu because it was just Debian with enough extra stuff to make it work the desktop environment nicer to work with. But if you're running a headless server, you'd want that as stripped back as possible without all the extra junk that comes along with Ubuntu, so Debian base seems like the obvious choice.

    Its not about bloat or extra features. Its just about Predictable release cycle and long term support. You get 5 years standard support with every LTS versions. Imagine if you have a good number of servers and how much hassle you have to go through for an os upgrade every 2 or 3 years?

  • ralfralf Member
    edited April 2023

    @sreekanth850 said:
    Its not about bloat or extra features. Its just about Predictable release cycle and long term support. You get 5 years standard support with every LTS versions. Imagine if you have a good number of servers and how much hassle you have to go through for an os upgrade every 2 or 3 years?

    Debian supports every stable release branch for 5 years: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

    Thanked by 2Ed_Chd emgh
  • mwtmwt Member

    @sreekanth850 said:

    @ralf said:
    In all seriousness, I don't actually understand why anybody would choose Ubuntu over Debian for a production machine. Maybe things have moved on now and base Ubuntu can be as lean as Debian, but I used to use Ubuntu because it was just Debian with enough extra stuff to make it work the desktop environment nicer to work with. But if you're running a headless server, you'd want that as stripped back as possible without all the extra junk that comes along with Ubuntu, so Debian base seems like the obvious choice.

    Its not about bloat or extra features. Its just about Predictable release cycle and long term support. You get 5 years standard support with every LTS versions. Imagine if you have a good number of servers and how much hassle you have to go through for an os upgrade every 2 or 3 years?

    Debian has LTS support for at least 5 years.

    Thanked by 3Maounique Ed_Chd emgh
  • sh97sh97 Member

    @sreekanth850 said:
    So nobody using Ubuntu LTS on production here?

    You're not alone, I use Ubuntu on production. 😄

  • sreekanth850sreekanth850 Member
    edited April 2023

    @ralf said:

    @sreekanth850 said:
    Its not about bloat or extra features. Its just about Predictable release cycle and long term support. You get 5 years standard support with every LTS versions. Imagine if you have a good number of servers and how much hassle you have to go through for an os upgrade every 2 or 3 years?

    Debian supports every stable release branch for 5 years: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

    Not officially right? I mean by core team. Its like Ubuntu extended maintenance where I can get support for 20.04 upto 2032.

  • webcraftwebcraft Member

    @Nanja said:
    I hope there's a free web hosting panel that will work with it right on release o:)

    DirectAdmin isn't free but it works with Debian 12 already.

  • MMzFMMzF Member

    @sreekanth850 said:

    @ralf said:

    @sreekanth850 said:
    Its not about bloat or extra features. Its just about Predictable release cycle and long term support. You get 5 years standard support with every LTS versions. Imagine if you have a good number of servers and how much hassle you have to go through for an os upgrade every 2 or 3 years?

    Debian supports every stable release branch for 5 years: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

    Not officially right? I mean by core team. Its like Ubuntu extended maintenance where I can get support for 20.04 upto 2032.

    https://www.debian.org/consultants/

  • sreekanth850sreekanth850 Member

    @MMzF said:

    @sreekanth850 said:

    @ralf said:

    @sreekanth850 said:
    Its not about bloat or extra features. Its just about Predictable release cycle and long term support. You get 5 years standard support with every LTS versions. Imagine if you have a good number of servers and how much hassle you have to go through for an os upgrade every 2 or 3 years?

    Debian supports every stable release branch for 5 years: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

    Not officially right? I mean by core team. Its like Ubuntu extended maintenance where I can get support for 20.04 upto 2032.

    https://www.debian.org/consultants/

    We are talking about official LTS releases. Not about paid support.

  • ralfralf Member

    I'm not an expert on this, but I believe Debian LTS is official in that it's organised by the same group of people, but probably has a different team to the "core team" that's working on the next version, but I don't think that's any different to how there's a different team working on the unstable (i.e. next version) to the current stable. They push things to the same repositories, so I guess it's official.

    After the 5 years, there's also this: https://wiki.debian.org/LTS/Extended
    This is "unsupported" and AFAIK their changes don't end up in the main repository, although anyone can access them I believe. I guess you'd add their repo to your APT sources. I've no experience of this, as I've always updated before the normal 5 years of LTS support.

    Thanked by 1sreekanth850
  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    I have been using "oldstable" debian for many years after it has been "obsoleted" with 0 issues. This is one of the reasons I prefer Debian over everything else. The people there care about stability and security much more than for bling and "bleeding edges".

    It is simply perfect for me.

  • YmpkerYmpker Member

    @sh97 said:

    @sreekanth850 said:
    So nobody using Ubuntu LTS on production here?

    You're not alone, I use Ubuntu on production. 😄

    I also use Ubuntu.

  • VirtFusionVirtFusion Member

    @FatGrizzly Debian Bookworm is available via the VF template manager 😉

    The hypervisor level installers are also live on the docs if you want to be adventurous.

    Thanked by 1FatGrizzly
  • FatGrizzlyFatGrizzly Member, Host Rep

    @VirtFusion said:
    @FatGrizzly Debian Bookworm is available via the VF template manager 😉

    The hypervisor level installers are also live on the docs if you want to be adventurous.

    Our Tokyo node might be installed with bookworm, will enable Debian Bookworm for FreeVPS users today.

    Thank you Phill!

  • ArkasArkas Moderator

    @treesmokah said: the first >non-retarded release for newfags

    will include "non-free" drivers in official images now

    Stop using this kind of language. It is unacceptable.

    Thanked by 8Mumbly neverain emg TimboJones Otus9051 maverickp Ed_Chd emgh
  • treesmokahtreesmokah Member

    @Arkas said:

    @treesmokah said: the first >non-retarded release for newfags

    will include "non-free" drivers in official images now

    Stop using this kind of language. It is unacceptable.

    which part?

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @treesmokah said:

    @Arkas said:

    @treesmokah said: the first >non-retarded release for newfags

    will include "non-free" drivers in official images now

    Stop using this kind of language. It is unacceptable.

    which part?

    You know which part. Please just stop

    Thanked by 4Mumbly neverain TimboJones emgh
  • suutsuut Member

    I've been running Debian 12 in a racknerd vps for a while. 512M memory can run very well.

    root@Ryzen:~# free -m
               total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:             453         131         118           1         217         322
Swap:            509           0         509
    Thanked by 3ralf Ympker MMzF
  • aidahoaidaho Member

    @MMzF said:

    @raindog308 said:
    bulleye requires 780MB of RAM.

    You think bookworm will require 1GB?

    Bullseye runs smoothly on 256 MB of RAM for me.

    I'm sure it is, but apt can be pretty hungry nowadays during installation dependency resolution stage and might want a bit more than that.

  • MaouniqueMaounique Host Rep, Veteran

    @aidaho said: I'm sure it is, but apt can be pretty hungry nowadays during installation dependency resolution stage and might want a bit more than that.

    I had no issues with that on 256. The only thing that I wanted to run and didn't manage was a modern browser.

  • ErisaErisa Member

    @aidaho said:

    @MMzF said:

    @raindog308 said:
    bulleye requires 780MB of RAM.

    You think bookworm will require 1GB?

    Bullseye runs smoothly on 256 MB of RAM for me.

    I'm sure it is, but apt can be pretty hungry nowadays during installation dependency resolution stage and might want a bit more than that.

    For an occasional memory spike like that, would you not be fine just adding more swap? Many have misgivings about swap however for a low memory machine a solid amount of swap can keep things chugging at the cost of a bit lowered performance when memory spikes. Probably preferable to random OOMs.

    Thanked by 1darkimmortal
  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member
    edited May 2023

    @ralf said:
    In all seriousness, I don't actually understand why anybody would choose Ubuntu over Debian for a production machine. Maybe things have moved on now and base Ubuntu can be as lean as Debian, but I used to use Ubuntu because it was just Debian with enough extra stuff to make it work the desktop environment nicer to work with. But if you're running a headless server, you'd want that as stripped back as possible without all the extra junk that comes along with Ubuntu, so Debian base seems like the obvious choice.

    • It had better hardware out of the box, non-free driver shit.
    • Ubuntu had 5 year LTS before Debian got 5 year support. Businesses are usually two years behind starting off.
    • canonical offered commercial support

    Packages can be installed and removed all the same. That's mainly moot. If you're going to run a headless server, you just do, Ubuntu doesn't prevent you.

    Edit: Holy shit, never realized Debian had 5 year LTS. I would have better money it was 3 years up until last decade. I guess in my experience, they become useless within 3 years due to dead repos and no more application support.

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member

    @Erisa said:

    @aidaho said:

    @MMzF said:

    @raindog308 said:
    bulleye requires 780MB of RAM.

    You think bookworm will require 1GB?

    Bullseye runs smoothly on 256 MB of RAM for me.

    I'm sure it is, but apt can be pretty hungry nowadays during installation dependency resolution stage and might want a bit more than that.

    For an occasional memory spike like that, would you not be fine just adding more swap? Many have misgivings about swap however for a low memory machine a solid amount of swap can keep things chugging at the cost of a bit lowered performance when memory spikes. Probably preferable to random OOMs.

    Had an Oracle VM with 1GB but was like 700MB to OS. Dnf or apt still crashed with 2GB swap. Happened over a year after VM was setup with no changes other than package updates throughout the year.

    Thanked by 1Erisa
  • ErisaErisa Member

    @TimboJones said:

    @Erisa said:

    @aidaho said:

    @MMzF said:

    @raindog308 said:
    bulleye requires 780MB of RAM.

    You think bookworm will require 1GB?

    Bullseye runs smoothly on 256 MB of RAM for me.

    I'm sure it is, but apt can be pretty hungry nowadays during installation dependency resolution stage and might want a bit more than that.

    For an occasional memory spike like that, would you not be fine just adding more swap? Many have misgivings about swap however for a low memory machine a solid amount of swap can keep things chugging at the cost of a bit lowered performance when memory spikes. Probably preferable to random OOMs.

    Had an Oracle VM with 1GB but was like 700MB to OS. Dnf or apt still crashed with 2GB swap. Happened over a year after VM was setup with no changes other than package updates throughout the year.

    dnf I could believe, that's always been hell under low memory environments for me... I always stick to Debian-based for those (and well largely everything these days), not had issues with 512MB machines running debian

  • TimboJonesTimboJones Member

    @Erisa said:

    @TimboJones said:

    @Erisa said:

    @aidaho said:

    @MMzF said:

    @raindog308 said:
    bulleye requires 780MB of RAM.

    You think bookworm will require 1GB?

    Bullseye runs smoothly on 256 MB of RAM for me.

    I'm sure it is, but apt can be pretty hungry nowadays during installation dependency resolution stage and might want a bit more than that.

    For an occasional memory spike like that, would you not be fine just adding more swap? Many have misgivings about swap however for a low memory machine a solid amount of swap can keep things chugging at the cost of a bit lowered performance when memory spikes. Probably preferable to random OOMs.

    Had an Oracle VM with 1GB but was like 700MB to OS. Dnf or apt still crashed with 2GB swap. Happened over a year after VM was setup with no changes other than package updates throughout the year.

    dnf I could believe, that's always been hell under low memory environments for me... I always stick to Debian-based for those (and well largely everything these days), not had issues with 512MB machines running debian

    Had to give up on 512MB running debian years ago and was just running ad blocking VPN's.. Updating a single package at a time was the workaround.

    Thanked by 1Erisa
Sign In or Register to comment.