Howdy, Stranger!

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


Should I go back to CentOS 6?
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.

Should I go back to CentOS 6?

I have a 512M KVM box,

it is running C7/64bit right now and I feel the RAM is very tight,

Should I go back to 6? Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

I always think that 6 is a very old system and I wont go back, am I wrong?

Any advice is appreciated.:)

«1

Comments

  • overclock said: Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    Many years and thousands of security patches, and at least 2 major kernel versions.

    But sure, if you like old drivers and open security holes no doubt, install CentOS 6.

    Thanked by 1luissousa
  • MasonRMasonR Community Contributor
    edited June 2017

    I doubt there's any noticeable performance differences between 6 and 7. Depending on what software you're running, you'd have better performance using 32bit over 64bit since you are using a small box. Install only the bare minimal packages on the server as well.

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @overclock said:
    I have a 512M KVM box,

    it is running C7/64bit right now and I feel the RAM is very tight,

    Should I go back to 6? Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    I always think that 6 is a very old system and I wont go back, am I wrong?

    Any advice is appreciated.:)

    Get a KVM with at least 1G RAM if you want to run CentOS-7. Seriously. It'll make things much easier.

    From https://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS7 :

    At least 1024 MB RAM is required to install and use CentOS-7 (1611).

    Yes, it's possible to use 512M or less if you know what you're doing. (But do you know what you're doing?)

    It wouldn't make much sense to return to CentOS-6.

    Thanked by 1vimalware
  • yomeroyomero Member

    Debian, thx

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    MasonR said: I doubt there's any noticeable performance differences between 6 and 7.

    CentOS wants 1GB of RAM as @angstrom mentions. Also, systemd came in CentOS 7, so the OS is quite different than 6.

    MasonR said: Install only the bare minimal packages on the server as well.

    Yes. When you get into small VPSes, turning off stuff and tuning memory down is the price of admission.

  • @William said:

    overclock said: Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    Many years and thousands of security patches, and at least 2 major kernel versions.

    But sure, if you like old drivers and open security holes no doubt, install CentOS 6.

    Im no server security expert, but why do providers still allow CentOS 6 if it to be so vulnerable and open like you say?

  • @PremiumN said:

    @William said:

    overclock said: Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    Many years and thousands of security patches, and at least 2 major kernel versions.

    But sure, if you like old drivers and open security holes no doubt, install CentOS 6.

    Im no server security expert, but why do providers still allow CentOS 6 if it to be so vulnerable and open like you say?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#End-of-support_schedule

  • qtwrkqtwrk Member

    @hostnoob said:

    @PremiumN said:

    @William said:

    overclock said: Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    Many years and thousands of security patches, and at least 2 major kernel versions.

    But sure, if you like old drivers and open security holes no doubt, install CentOS 6.

    Im no server security expert, but why do providers still allow CentOS 6 if it to be so vulnerable and open like you say?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#End-of-support_schedule

    yes , but not everyone or every OS template has been up-to-date.

    @PremiumN said:

    @William said:

    overclock said: Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    Many years and thousands of security patches, and at least 2 major kernel versions.

    But sure, if you like old drivers and open security holes no doubt, install CentOS 6.

    Im no server security expert, but why do providers still allow CentOS 6 if it to be so vulnerable and open like you say?

    I think, many providers clearly state that buyer will solely be responsible for VPS's management , security , update , and such.

    so they don't really care about it I guess, if it got hack'ed and doing something bad. they can, they will , and as stated in TOS, just simply shut it off.

    and , some legacy and outdated stuff might only run on old version...

  • fLoofLoo Member
    edited June 2017

    @William said:

    overclock said: Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    Many years and thousands of security patches, and at least 2 major kernel versions.

    But sure, if you like old drivers and open security holes no doubt, install CentOS 6.

    Sorry dude but thats complete BS. Didnt expect such a brainfart from a smart guy you actually are.

    Thanked by 3Hxxx lonea solarman
  • bobbrbobbr Member
    edited June 2017

    There are plenty of cases where 512 would not be comfortable. But this is Centos 7.3 64-bit running nothing much except a lightly used Hiawatha Web server, which takes up very little RAM.

         [rprt@rkvm3 ~]$ free
                      total        used       free          shared    buff/cache  available 
         Mem:         500436       71488      243660        8492      185288      397756
    
  • fLoofLoo Member

    Maybe the op does not know howto interpret "free -m"

    http://www.linuxatemyram.com/

    Thanked by 1Tom
  • b6688b6688 Member

    Hi All,

    I just want to share my experience since I am running with CentOS 6.9 / 7.3 in most of my VPS in the past, present and future. I have no issue so far running with LEMP.

    32bit will save you a lots of memory.
    64bit eat up more memory.

    So, if you have a box with < 512MB RAM, I will recommend to installed 32bit CentOS. You may check from CentOS 6/7 both supported 32bit

    http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/7/isos/i386/

    I do not have any issue with either CentOS 6/7 as long as you always get updated most of the time.

    For CentOS 6/7, just type

    yum update -y
    

    For your reference, you may check my previous replied at
    https://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/113019/what-is-the-use-of-a-256mb-ram-vps

  • jaejae Member

    overclock said: Any advice is appreciated.:)

    Promox lxc centos6 vs centos7, centos7 eat much more ram than centos6 after install amavis, clamav & spamassasin.

  • @jae said:

    overclock said: Any advice is appreciated.:)

    Promox lxc centos6 vs centos7, centos7 eat much more ram than centos6 after install amavis, clamav & spamassasin.

    Thanks.

  • @overclock said:
    I have a 512M KVM box,

    it is running C7/64bit right now and I feel the RAM is very tight,

    Should I go back to 6? Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    I always think that 6 is a very old system and I wont go back, am I wrong?

    Any advice is appreciated.:)

    Install this ISO : http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/7/isos/x86_64/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1611.iso

    This is the minimal, and you can install anything on top of it.

  • @cyberpersons said:

    @overclock said:
    I have a 512M KVM box,

    it is running C7/64bit right now and I feel the RAM is very tight,

    Should I go back to 6? Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    I always think that 6 is a very old system and I wont go back, am I wrong?

    Any advice is appreciated.:)

    Install this ISO : http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/7/isos/x86_64/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1611.iso

    This is the minimal, and you can install anything on top of it.

    I do using minimal version at this moment, but I went back to 6 now.:( seems 6 would save more ram.

  • @overclock said:

    @cyberpersons said:

    @overclock said:
    I have a 512M KVM box,

    it is running C7/64bit right now and I feel the RAM is very tight,

    Should I go back to 6? Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    I always think that 6 is a very old system and I wont go back, am I wrong?

    Any advice is appreciated.:)

    Install this ISO : http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/7/isos/x86_64/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1611.iso

    This is the minimal, and you can install anything on top of it.

    I do using minimal version at this moment, but I went back to 6 now.:( seems 6 would save more ram.

    Just make sure to apply all the latest available updates to CentOS 6.

  • @cyberpersons said:

    @overclock said:

    @cyberpersons said:

    @overclock said:
    I have a 512M KVM box,

    it is running C7/64bit right now and I feel the RAM is very tight,

    Should I go back to 6? Whats the exact different between 6 and 7?

    I always think that 6 is a very old system and I wont go back, am I wrong?

    Any advice is appreciated.:)

    Install this ISO : http://isoredirect.centos.org/centos/7/isos/x86_64/CentOS-7-x86_64-Minimal-1611.iso

    This is the minimal, and you can install anything on top of it.

    I do using minimal version at this moment, but I went back to 6 now.:( seems 6 would save more ram.

    Just make sure to apply all the latest available updates to CentOS 6.

    Will "yum -y update" be enough?

  • @overclock said:
    Will "yum -y update" be enough?

    Will do the trick.

  • @qtwrk said:
    I think, many providers clearly state that buyer will solely be responsible for VPS's management , security , update , and such.

    so they don't really care about it I guess, if it got hack'ed and doing something bad. they can, they will , and as stated in TOS, just simply shut it off.

    and , some legacy and outdated stuff might only run on old version...

    Well that doesnt answer my question does it? How can a customers be responsible if CentOS 6 is OFFERED by them that it is deemed to be insecure like our friend @William suggests?

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @PremiumN said:

    @qtwrk said:
    I think, many providers clearly state that buyer will solely be responsible for VPS's management , security , update , and such.

    so they don't really care about it I guess, if it got hack'ed and doing something bad. they can, they will , and as stated in TOS, just simply shut it off.

    and , some legacy and outdated stuff might only run on old version...

    Well that doesnt answer my question does it? How can a customers be responsible if CentOS 6 is OFFERED by them that it is deemed to be insecure like our friend @William suggests?

    Calm down, William was speaking off the cuff, CentOS 6 is stable and supported and patched to the hilt. It's in Red Hat's interest to patch any security holes as soon as they're discovered.

    At the same time, CentOS 6 is old -- even Debian 7 seems new by comparison. I fail to see the rationale for choosing CentOS 6 over CentOS 7 on a new server unless one has a very specific reason for doing so (e.g., a dependence on old software that isn't available for CentOS 7).

  • YuraYura Member

    No, unsafe. Go back to CentOS 5. Battle tested since 2011.

    Thanked by 2yomero scaveney
  • WilliamWilliam Member
    edited June 2017

    fLoo said: Sorry dude but thats complete BS. Didnt expect such a brainfart from a smart guy you actually are.

    Right. Now get me a 2016 Adaptec controller to run in CentOS 6. Or a Chelsio 40GE card without crashing the host. Or a PLX8747 without degrading the entire system to near crap performance.

    Drivers are barely backported to CentOS 6 and if they are they are utterly useless by now.

    angstrom said: Calm down, William was speaking off the cuff, CentOS 6 is stable and supported and patched to the hilt. It's in Red Hat's interest to patch any security holes as soon as they're discovered.

    Patched yes, minimally.

    XP is also still patched, just a few days ago in fact, yet it is an extremely dumb idea to actually use it.

    OSX 10.11 is also patched and supported, yet you can unlock it over Thunderbolt in less than 10 seconds in most cases...

    OpenVZ is still running on "supported" 2.6.32 which has performance and load issues on new hardware...

    The list goes on and on, just because it is "supported" or "patched" does not mean it is actually useful or makes sense to use.

    Thanked by 1raynor
  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @William said: angstrom said: Calm down, William was speaking off the cuff, CentOS 6 is stable and supported and patched to the hilt. It's in Red Hat's interest to patch any security holes as soon as they're discovered.

    Patched yes, minimally.

    XP is also still patched, just a few days ago in fact, yet it is an extremely dumb idea to actually use it.

    OSX 10.11 is also patched and supported, yet you can unlock it over Thunderbolt in less than 10 seconds in most cases...

    OpenVZ is still running on "supported" 2.6.32 which has performance and load issues on new hardware...

    The list goes on and on, just because it is "supported" or "patched" does not mean it is actually useful or makes sense to use.

    For the record, I agree with you. I wasn't at all advocating the use of CentOS 6 (on the contrary -- reread my post). And just to add that on 10 May, CentOS 6 entered the period of maintenance updates only:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS#CentOS_releases

    At the same time, it's unclear to what extent (an updated) CentOS 6 has security holes.

  • qtwrkqtwrk Member

    @PremiumN said:

    @qtwrk said:
    I think, many providers clearly state that buyer will solely be responsible for VPS's management , security , update , and such.

    so they don't really care about it I guess, if it got hack'ed and doing something bad. they can, they will , and as stated in TOS, just simply shut it off.

    and , some legacy and outdated stuff might only run on old version...

    Well that doesnt answer my question does it? How can a customers be responsible if CentOS 6 is OFFERED by them that it is deemed to be insecure like our friend @William suggests?

    I think you missed point .

    Provider did NOT force to you use centos6, as you are free to choose whatever you want which also means you will be responsible of the outcome.

    For example I sell a kitchen knife, someone use it to cook, someone use to kill.

    Can I be held responsible for the user's action of that killing ? Apparently no.

  • qtwrkqtwrk Member

    My personal opinion and philosophy is that, stick to latest stable as possible.

    developer did an update for reason,either it's new function or bug/security fix , they won't waste countless time and efforts for nothing.

  • @qtwrk said:

    @PremiumN said:

    @qtwrk said:
    I think, many providers clearly state that buyer will solely be responsible for VPS's management , security , update , and such.

    so they don't really care about it I guess, if it got hack'ed and doing something bad. they can, they will , and as stated in TOS, just simply shut it off.

    and , some legacy and outdated stuff might only run on old version...

    Well that doesnt answer my question does it? How can a customers be responsible if CentOS 6 is OFFERED by them that it is deemed to be insecure like our friend @William suggests?

    I think you missed point .

    Provider did NOT force to you use centos6, as you are free to choose whatever you want which also means you will be responsible of the outcome.

    For example I sell a kitchen knife, someone use it to cook, someone use to kill.

    Can I be held responsible for the user's action of that killing ? Apparently no.

    We are not facing some big problems in C6 right?To nomarl users like me , there will be only 1 simple program like wordpress in that box, so we are not going to be hacked probably?

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @overclock said: We are not facing some big problems in C6 right?To nomarl users like me , there will be only 1 simple program like wordpress in that box, so we are not going to be hacked probably?

    No, no one tries to hack WordPress, so you should be okay.

    Thanked by 2M66B scaveney
  • overclock said: We are not facing some big problems in C6 right?

    CentOS 6 is still receiving security updates till 2020, you have nothing to worry about. Sure, its hardware support is a few years behind 7 and I wouldn't recommend 6 for a new install at this point, but people here are blowing this way out of proportion.

  • raindog308raindog308 Administrator, Veteran

    @William said:

    fLoo said: Sorry dude but thats complete BS. Didnt expect such a brainfart from a smart guy you actually are.

    Right. Now get me a 2016 Adaptec controller to run in CentOS 6. Or a Chelsio 40GE card without crashing the host. Or a PLX8747 without degrading the entire system to near crap performance.

    Drivers are barely backported to CentOS 6 and if they are they are utterly useless by now.

    But if you're running a VPS, you probably don't care about tht.

    The list goes on and on, just because it is "supported" or "patched" does not mean it is actually useful or makes sense to use.

    I agree and disagree. Best practice is always to run current but running CentOS 6 is different than running XP. RHEL 6 is well-supported in the sense that you can call RedHat and discuss a problem with them and they're on the hook to support, and so some of that flows downstream. But I wouldn't start anything new on Centos 6.

    Then again, I don't see the point of CentOS at all for hobbyist LEBs. RedHat has made it abundantly clear that they're interested in enterprise stuff, not hobbyists. Minimum requirement 1GB and 64-bit is a strong hint.

    If you're routinely setting up big boxes than sure, consider CentOS. But they're not interested in supporting the vast majority of what we talk about here.

    Thanked by 1PremiumN
Sign In or Register to comment.