Linux Fatware: Distros That Need To Slim Down 299
snydeq writes "We need bare-bones Linux distros tailored for virtual machines or at least the option for installs, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. 'As I prepped a new virtual server template the other day, it occurred to me that we need more virtualization-specific Linux distributions or at least specific VM-only options when performing an install. A few distros take steps in this direction, such as Ubuntu and OEL jeOS (just enough OS), but they're not necessarily tuned for virtual servers. For large installations, the distributions in use are typically highly customized on one side or the other — either built as templates and deployed to VMs, or deployed through the use of silent installers or scripts that install only the bits and pieces required for the job. However, these are all handled as one-offs. They're generally not available or suitable for general use.'"
Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Got that. It's called Debian Net Install.
Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Did the server version of Ubuntu suddenly disappear?
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
apt-get install what-I-need-and-nothing-else
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
it seems you've yet to discover the beauty of
as to why anybody would use ubuntu server, the answer is simple - predictable release cycle
Re: (Score:3)
I use Ubuntu server if I need a server up ASAP with a well supported distro. It's not a one-size-fits-all distro any more than... any other distro.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't sort out why anyone would want to use Ubuntu Server.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
I run Ubuntu server on a certain box, for one reason. If I weren't for this case, that machine wouldn't have Ubuntu, but it does:
Mythbackend.
I want the backend to run the same version of MythTV as my Mythbuntu front ends (and regardless of whatever you overall think of Ubuntu, MythBuntu is a pretty good "applicance" if you're into MythTV). One of the ugly things about MythTV is that the front and back ends need to be the same version; MythTV isn't very tolerant of differing versions. (Or at least that's what the case was in the 0.23-0.24 days; I haven't tried mixing 0.25 with 0.24.)
So I can either compile my own to make sure each side is using the same version (which totally defeats the point of MythBuntu) or I can make sure all the boxes use the same version, by making them all use the same basic repository. I did the latter, because I'm lazy.
BTW, if I were deploying a new system in 2013, I would take a good hard look at LXC, running a minimal Ubuntu with their release of Mythbackend inside of a container, hosted by an overall more stable, less .. scary(?) distro. I think lots of oldschool Linux dudes reach for "heavier" virtualization, not realizing what features have been added to the vanilla (!!!) kernels in the last couple years. No Linux-Vserver or OpenVZ patches needed (assuming you don't consider the contained system to be potentially hostile; DO NOT think of LXC as a security tool, yet). LXC isn't done, but it's already at a point where it's useful in some situations, and your box may very well have it built in, right now.
Re: (Score:2)
For that thing that the submitter was asking for?
You want a bare-bones version of Ubuntu? That's that. If you are venemously anti-Ubuntu then obviously it's not for you, but then that's not something you'd be asking for.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
why would serious business use shaky unstable things like btrfs? The "well tested" is relatively old, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Because in some cases it is useful. Though in this case zfs is better as it is more stable. Still, there are things that, while not as "well tested" are still quite useful. Fedora/Ubuntu should be limited to the servers that really need them, but they are useful.
Re: (Score:3)
why would serious business use shaky unstable things like btrfs? The "well tested" is relatively old, yes.
Oracle supports btrfs with their database product, so I assumed that meant it's not so shaky and unstable anymore - it doesn't make sense for them to spend expensive support engineer time supporting known shaky software.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Haven't used Oracle much have you.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't used Oracle much have you.
I have, but mostly on Solaris.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
That Oracle supports running on btrfs isn't really a strong statement about its quality level for general use. btrfs aims to runs Oracle stably as its top development priority. Oracle doesn't require very many filesystem features. Some people run it happily on raw disk volumes. There's a good sized list of companies over the years that have built filesystems optimized for exactly type of workload Oracle creates. As an example, around 2006 I had a consulting job getting PostgreSQL to work well on a Linux system with the Veritas vxfs filesystem. Much of that tuning involved making the database's I/O look more like how Oracle writes things--things like using direct I/O instead of cached writes.
The problems get bad when you try to use btrfs for anything else. Repeat the same sort of experiment today, try and use PostgreSQL on btrfs for example, and you can expect btrfs will panic and corrupt itself under heavy load. The specific subset of filesystem read/write and caching behaviors Oracle expects may work, but the other read/write paths through the btrfs filesystem aren't nearly as well tested. Oracle's priorities for btrfs QA remind me of the old joke about Microsoft's monopoly abuse: "DOS Ain't Done til Lotus Won't Run".
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I've got a production server running a Wheezy RC as we speak. If I want bleeding edge I can move over to testing. I can see absolutely no reason why I would ever want to run Ubuntu server.
(As an aside, I did run one back in the 10.x days, and Apache 2 and/or PHP 5 had been compiled with some funky flag or another and wouldn't properly display some PHP pages. Moving it over to my Slackware or Debian servers, and they displayed fine.)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Because there are potentially large performance gains to be had in VMs running postgres by running a 3.x kernel, which CentOS doesn't use yet. Fedora or Ubuntu server are what i'm going to look at to see if it's of use to me.
This is an excellent example of why that sort of thing is avoided by risk-adverse deployments. Early adopters of PostgreSQL on various 3.X kernels are still seeing a variety of nasty kernel issues, and many of them are rolling back to the stable RHEL or Debian kernels based on 2.6.32 to avoid them. A good example is High CPU usage / load average after upgrading to Ubuntu 12.04 [postgresql.org]. I'm tracking about 5 such PostgreSQL issues that only show up in 3.X kernels we're trying to get sorted out still. (I'm a PostgreSQL contributor) Yes, the 3.X kernels are faster in general, but they're still not very stable compared to the boring old ones in CentOS.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
even slimmer: debootstrap --variant minbase on another partition
more info on debian installation manual.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
I second this..debootstrap is your friend. We don't need no stinking installers! :D
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. As small or big as you like.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Fascinating idea.
Is this some fork of Ubuntu?
(runs)
Ubuntu Minimal (Score:3)
Yes: Ubuntu Minimal [ubuntu.com].
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
TFA was a complete exercise in BS. Here's another example of how to do a slim Linux install: during a Mageia or Mandriva install, select the Custom option, deselect everything, click through to proceed but when it stops to check if you really, really want to have such a sparse choice select "truly-minimal-install" and you will get exactly what it says, without X or even man pages.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, until the distro is supported on the various agents that are required (Netbackup, OpenView, OpNet, Data Palette for example), we'll have to stick with a tuned Red Hat distro for our virtual environment.
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent down! Saying "Ubuntu sucks" is redundant.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
MADE FOR SECURE VIRTUAL APPLIANCES: (Score:3)
Openwall (OWL). [openwall.com]
Secure?
When packaged for Owl, the software components are configured or, when necessary, modified in order to provide safe defaults, apply the least privilege principle, and introduce privilege separation. The use of safe defaults, where optional and potentially dangerous features need to be turned on explicitly, lets us audit the pieces of code used in in the default configuration in a more thorough way. Extra systems administration facilities ("owl-control") are provided for managing system
Re: Really? (Score:3)
Re: Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
Can You explain to me why Ubuntu sucks? I have seen this statement multiple times on Slashdot, but I really think this is just a stupid trend.
When I configured my workstation, I downloaded the Ubuntu 12.04 minimal CD [30MB] and installed a encrypted commandline system . After that I installed Xorg and compiled DWM with my preferred settings, then I installed browser, editor etc. The system is slim, fast and stable but it is still Ubuntu, so can You explain why my system sucks?
Ubuntu consists of a Linux kernel and GNU userland like most other Linux distros, but I also get the following:
1. Applications and kernel that is compiled with hardening flags. Current Debian is built with absolutely no hardening, so a zero day in a network service on Debian will be very very easy to exploit.
2. Security updates to 2017
3. Reasonably current software.
I also like Debian very much, but I think it is stupid to keep saying that Ubuntu sucks...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
A huge reason why is the hodgepodge of INIT you have if you are running 12.04... there is no mechanism to tell whether the packages are you installing use SysV or upstart style-init. You have to go looking for it depending which package you installed.
Other reasons...oh where to start...
1) Your ubuntu-only gnome3 UI? (eg unity). Did you remove it? If so, wtf are you using ubuntu for again?
2) resolvconfd, another ubuntu-introduced joke
3) disparate dependency tracking mechanisms (eg, are you using synaptic? it
Re: (Score:2)
in all fairness, synaptic is included in ubuntu's parent, debian
the rest is fair enough :)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Because some of us have used both, and know people who are the release managers for both, and know what kind of shortcuts Ubuntu takes (things that will screw you over).
debian testing is far more stable than ubuntu stable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not in this fight, as I care for neither Ubuntu nor Debian. However, I have a bone to pick with #2.
No, you don't get security updates until 2017. You get security updates only on packages that Canonical hand picked for that particular release. Hence, your dwm (or really it could be any WM/DE other than Unity) and any other packages that stray from that line, are absolutely left in the cold and unpatched, unloved as soon as next-new-shiny gets released.
Re: (Score:3)
Lack of useful backports to their LTS releases is the major reason I avoid Ubuntu Server. Canonical does some occasional updates to older LTS releases. But most of the time, the only suggested fix for bugs I see is "upgrade to the latest version of Ubuntu". They do not show nearly the same dedication to backporting bug fixes and nailing down a stable, well tested version of packages that I see from RedHat and Debian.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
For those of us that install a Linux image expecting to get work done with it instead of jacking off and building every piece of software ourselves, Ubuntu sucks - most specifically, because of Unity.
Which software do you have to build yourself? I don't like Unity so I use Kubuntu as a developer workstation and the only software I've had to build myself is software I've written myself. It's been a while since I've used plain Ubnutu so I'm curious what software they don't include with Unity.
But then, I don't use Linux for jacking off, some of the porn codecs are windows specific so I use windows for jacking off.
Re: (Score:2)
Ubuntu server doesnt include Unity, or GDM, or even X.
Re: (Score:3)
Who uses Unity on a server?
Who uses a resolver daemon on a server?
Ubuntu, apparently. Because sys admins are constantly lugging our servers into coffee shops.
Re: (Score:2)
damnit, I wish I had modpoints - this should be marked insightful and not troll
Re:Really? (Score:4, Informative)
Ubuntu Core (Score:5, Informative)
Ubuntu core distribution is ~34 MB, and available for x86, amd64, and ARM. It's more than suffcient to bootstrap a lean OS.
Re:Ubuntu Core (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Ubuntu Core (Score:4, Funny)
If "nonstandard" is a problem, maybe you should be looking at OSes from a certain angry bald man.
Re:Ubuntu Core (Score:5, Insightful)
Than its fairly safe to say you (and other Linux users) have a fairly different meaning of 'standard' than ... well, everyone else in the world.
You don't eat CPU time at idle, thats exactly the opposite of idle. I realize you mean that the daemons sit around eating CPU doing nothing you care about, but I suspect, even on a desktop install of Ubuntu you'll find the CPU sitting at 99.9% idle in top since those daemons are in sleep/wait states and not using any CPU.
Raspian has no CPU in use when even when X is running if you're not doing anything. Daemons swap out and don't waste CPU if they aren't in use and aren't shitty daemons. They do waste swap space though.
No Linux distro on the planet uses the stock kernel. All of them have different locations for many different files. All of them have major patchs to all sorts of 'standard' apps.
You seem to not understand what makes a distro different. If they were all 'standard' you wouldn't have xteen million variations of Linux.
Linux's lack of standardization is repeatedly brought up as one of its largest problems in becoming a more common desktop since software vendors don't want to target a bunch of slightly different distro's to pick up a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Have you even used more than one Linux distro?
Re: (Score:2)
> Linux's lack of standardization
That would be the lack of standardization that prevents me from running Oracle on some random unsupported distribution?
It case you missed it, that was sarcasm.
Re:Ubuntu Core (Score:5, Informative)
No Linux distro on the planet uses the stock kernel.
Slackware uses stock kernels
All of them have different locations for many different files.
Slackware puts the files where the app developers want to, they dont move files around, breaking stuff (are you listen redhat/fedora!)
All of them have major patchs to all sorts of 'standard' apps.
Slackware tried to used just the upstream code. Only when there are problem reported and there is a fix in the upstream cvs/svn/git, its is ported to the latest release (or the git version is used)
So yes, there are standard, plain and simple distros... slackware is one of the most stable distros there is by not messing all over
Linux's lack of standardization is repeatedly brought up as one of its largest problems in becoming a more common desktop since software vendors don't want to target a bunch of slightly different distro's to pick up a statistically insignificant portion of the population.
Strange, there are things like static binaries, that work EVERYWHERE... you can also ship the libraries, for a pseudo static binary.
But solving that isnt that hard, just have several VMs with the main distros and recompile... yes, its harder than having the source code open and let users/distros developers compile it for you, but that is the price for having closed source.
Re:Ubuntu Core (Score:5, Interesting)
Real world example: I develop with the Nightingale Media Player. While setting it up to use the current taglib, we managed to get it to work just fine with the taglib shipped with about every distro you can imagine...except Ubuntu. Some patch they have going on there completely breaks the build, as well as playback and tag parsing.
Re:Ubuntu Core (Score:5, Funny)
He's just very, very disappointed in the rest of us.
Re:Ubuntu Core (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
it's also Uzbekistanian for "i want a free version of Windows"
Re: (Score:2)
Debian distros aren't supported for the agents we require in production environment.
[John]
TinyCore? (Score:4, Insightful)
SliTaz is also another tiny one but has an interface and a cute spider.
TurnKey Core (Score:5, Informative)
It's small, lightweight and runs very quickly even on older hardware. It does a great job.
-americamatrix
Re: (Score:2)
Does core have the weird turnkey update scripts that I seem to recall from years ago?
From the link: "It includes custom automated backup and migration software, a web management interface, automatic daily security updates, live installer, configuration console, and all other common features. Take a look at some screenshots."
So ... yes, probably. It also weighs in at 161MB, about 5x more than Ubuntu Core.
Once upon a time... (Score:2, Interesting)
RHEL/CENTOS minimal (Score:5, Insightful)
RHEL/CENTOS minimal does this just fine.
Why bother about a solved problem?
Re: (Score:3)
Because the article's author wanted his 15 minutes on the /. front page. CentOS (or RHEL server) base install is 1.6 GB without a GUI and takes very little time.
Re:RHEL/CENTOS minimal (Score:4, Informative)
thats the base install? Hell my full Raspian install is smaller than that!
Ubuntu Core is 34MB.
Whats better ... if the submitter of the story had bothered to even google for it ... on the Ubuntu Core page ...
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Core [ubuntu.com]
About half way done the page, under Deploying Ubuntu Core, it links to the documentation for an x86 VM running ubuntu core ...
Re:RHEL/CENTOS minimal (Score:5, Informative)
CentOS minimal [mirrorservice.org] is 342Mb, which isn't as small as the Ubuntu, but I guess it comes with more "what you'd install anyway" packages.
There's the netinstall too, which is 230Mb. Nowadays if it can fit on a CD, its considered insignificant in size.
Re: (Score:2)
CentOS minimal install (choice picked from menu at install) takes about 0.68 GB and includes apache, nfs server, ssh server, selinux, python and iptables. Pretty much good to go. Yum install perl, mysql and php would add very little to the footprint and only takes a few seconds.
Re: (Score:2)
I was talking about the base install. My point was that 1.6 GB is not large by today's standards and does not take forever to install.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on what you call minimal. If you have a machine with (a minimum of) 512Mb memory, than yeah, it's fine. On the other hand, if you've got a machine from about 1998, with 64Mb of memory, you're basically SOL. CentOS won't even install. (I'm sure the fact that it's a Red Hat clone has something to do with it.)
Old machines are great for routers or VPN servers, and they can't be used for much else. If the machine is installed at a remote office, the long-term CentO
Archlinux, Slackware, Gentoo (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Archlinux, Slackware, Gentoo (Score:5, Funny)
I this saw long ago on a Windows 3.1 networking site:
"Freedom of choice means you have some work to do."
#! Linux (Score:5, Informative)
task-*.rpm (Score:5, Informative)
For RPM-based distros, it's easy enough to set up a task-*.rpm to install a minimal subset of the entire repository for a specific purpose, like a LAMP server. I'm sure .deb-based distros have something similar, so I'm really not seeing the problem here, just a lack of understanding the power of FOSS by the OP.
vmware tools? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What about virtual box, virtual iron, parallels, and QEMU drivers just to start? And thats just some of the popular/well known hypervisors.
And what about Bloat? Why not include every driver and software package known to man?
You don't NEED the vmware tools installed, the OS will run without them. You want them installed for better performance and because VMware is shit and won't send an ACPI shutdown command to the guest, only a freaking vmware tools command.
Re: (Score:2)
While vmware may be crap, it runs much faster on older CPUs (without hardware virtualization support) than qemu-kvm does.
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "VMWare is crap", by what metric is that?
Can you name another hypervisor that will happily allow you to nest ESXi, and then within that XenServer? Or Hyper-V (which will generally refuse to even install on another hypervisor)?
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't necessary, newer kernels have compatible drivers available. I'm not sure if RHEL has a version with the slipstreamed drivers yet or not but I do believe that CentOS does.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Management (Score:2)
wankers... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's already there... (Score:3)
But, hey, why take my word for it? Go ahead and install it, you will see.
(Oh, and don't bother whining ''Slackware is hard to learn'' yadda yadda yadda - you wanted customization, right? Live and learn)
Re:It's already there... (Score:5, Informative)
2GB for a full Slackware install? Try nearly 8.
And yeah, I'd like to put it on a diet, but once something is already included it becomes quite entrenched. It's extremely difficult to remove anything large enough to make a difference without causing rioting in the streets with torches and pitchforks. I suspect it's the same for any Linux distribution.
Tiny linux distro (Score:3)
http://www.toms.net/rb/ [slashdot.org] It's tiny, installs from DOS and Windows 9.x and even fits on a single floppy.... what?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Your problem has already been solved. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Your problem has already been solved. (Score:4, Informative)
You sure you need a full VM? (Score:2)
"Tuned"? (Score:4, Informative)
What exactly need be "tuned" for virtualization in a VM? I start my VMs with ubuntu-minimal [ubuntu.com], which is pretty darned minimal indeed. I think "eject" is about the only package in there that a VM wouldn't want.
What's the point (Score:3)
What about PuppyLinux or DamnSmallLinux? (Score:4, Informative)
What about PuppyLinux or DamnSmallLinux?
http://puppylinux.org/ [puppylinux.org] http://www.damnsmalllinux.org/ [damnsmalllinux.org]
Both are tiny, and boot in less than a minute.
Put Time Where Your Mouth Is... (Score:2)
And start making your templates available, that is the open source way, not waiting for software vendors to help your edge case.
Bachata Linux (Score:3)
Take a look at Bachata Linux, it is a slimmed down Debian weighing in at less than 128 MB, needs no Internet connection when installing:
http://www.bachatalinux.net/ [bachatalinux.net]
"A minimal Debian based Linux system with fully functional bash shell (with GNU coreutils, not BusyBox), TCP/IP networking with DHCP client and APT setup to be able to install any package from the Debian repositories."
Wrong Problem: LXC (Score:3)
Done wasting disk space, memory, copy time, & boot time for VMs?
Push for LXC and get already-on "VMs" with software already installed. You're limited to no reboots & 1 kernel, but system administration happens for everyone by the system maintainer. Then "fatware" distros are a feature.
You can skip virtualized filesystems with per-user home directories (and sensible browsing restrictions) if that fits your needs.
It only requires hooks into bringup/shutdown since there's no live migration yet.
Any of the Fedora "live CD" respins (Score:3)
I install Fedora from the XFCE "live CD" respin. I then add what I need. I get a very functional Linux GUI and not a whole lot of junk unless I go nuts with "yum install" (which is my problem; not the Fedora XFCE maintainer's).
I'm guessing that other distro's live CDs will work as well. Just be sure it's a live CD and not a live DVD. Making things fit in 700MB enforces a discipline that isn't there on a DVD image.
Cheers,
Dave
NetBSD (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Agree -- issues w/ VirtualBox... (Score:5, Informative)
PEBKAC
I have Fedora 18 running in VBox with a Windows 7 host at this exact moment.
Re: (Score:2)
Debian.
Re: (Score:2)
Youre using Virtualbox, and comparing it to VMWare. Not really apples to apples; VBox certainly can randomly crash.
Re: (Score:2)