I just tried CentOS 7

[Gofspar]

I honestly think its trash at the moment, LAMP doesn't work properly and alot of exploits with the current php version thats ready for it. Sticking to 6.6 boys!

[OriginalPromise]

I almost miss read that for ctOS.

 

Seeing it as a distribution of Linux, it looks decent.

I'll try it out sometime.

[Gofspar]

I almost miss read that for ctOS.

 

Seeing it as a distribution of Linux, it looks decent.

I'll try it out sometime.

ctOS haha, I thought watch dogs was a let down though. :L

[ionbasa]

Erm. Don't ever use the default LAMP package on any distro. That is just asking for trouble.

 

You're better off installing everything manually to custom suite your needs. I've only ever used the default LAMP package for rapid testing on a local machine, never for anything that is supposed to be security hardened.

[Gofspar]

Erm. Don't ever use the default LAMP package on any distro. That is just asking for trouble.

 

You're better off installing everything manually to custom suite your needs. I've only ever used the default LAMP package for rapid testing on a local machine, never for anything that is supposed to be security hardened.

It's not for any hardcore site, it was for testing my shit I code, theres alot wrong with it other than that.

[ionbasa]

It's not for any hardcore site, it was for testing my shit I code, theres alot wrong with it other than that.

Personally, never really had any trouble with CentOS. Maybe try ScientificLinux instead?

Again, I wouldn't use the LAMP stack for anything other than testing.

[Gofspar]

Personally, never really had any trouble with CentOS. Maybe try ScientificLinux instead?

Again, I wouldn't use the LAMP stack for anything other than testing.

It's only 7, I love 6.6. :L

[ionbasa]

It's only 7, I love 6.6. :L

What is so bothersome about the 7.x release? I currently have it running a MySQL server. Eveything works fine for me, and so far haven't had any problems with SELinux on the 7.x release.

[Gofspar]

What is so bothersome about the 7.x release? I currently have it running a MySQL server. Eveything works fine for me, and so far haven't had any problems with SELinux on the 7.x release.

It's just different, I don't like change. :L

[ionbasa]

It's just different, I don't like change. :L

For a moment, I thought there was something fundamentally flawed with CentOS' 7.x release (at least your earlier comments made it seem so).

 

I personally don't care for change (don't mind it).  Since all my servers are headless, once initially set up, I don't usually do much other than SSH in and update.

[Opcode]

CentOS as a desktop operating system is a no-go in my books. Leave it on the other end of a SSH shell where it belongs. Also drop the poor excuse of a web server known as Apache and use NGINX.

[ionbasa]

CentOS as a desktop operating system is a no-go in my books. Leave it on the other end of a SSH shell where it belongs. Also drop the poor excuse of a web server known as Apache and use NGINX.

I have the same feelings on this as you do!

The default LAMP package on any distro is a joke. Nginx is cool to play with, although, I don't know if its necessarily 'production ready'.

[Opcode]

I have the same feelings on this as you do!

The default LAMP package on any distro is a joke. Nginx is cool to play with, although, I don't know if its necessarily 'production ready'.

It's more than production ready and easily powers more than 14% of the websites world wide. I know quite a few that use it exclusively. You can also run NGINX and Apache together and have NGINX feed the client static content and use Apache for dynamic content. I personally just stick to NGINX and Fast-CGI. It's extremely simple to setup and NGINX is miles faster than Apache without any of the critical exploits.

[ionbasa]

It's more than production ready and easily powers more than 14% of the websites world wide. I know quite a few that use it exclusively. You can also run NGINX and Apache together and have NGINX feed the client static content and use Apache for dynamic content. I personally just stick to NGINX and Fast-CGI. It's extremely simple to setup and NGINX is miles faster than Apache without any of the critical exploits.

Theres that word "static content", If Nginx ever becomes better at serving dynamic content, my ideology may change. Personally, I have used Nginx as a load balancing server and as a reverse proxy server, and it works wonders. I have a wordpress blog along with a Drupal site I have been working on and off as a project that I run, and I have tested load times of Apache vs Nginx and in most cases Nginx is slower in serving dynamic content.

 

As a matter of fact, mind if I get some input on one of the projects I've been working on with some of my friends? Can I PM you the URL?

[Opcode]

Theres that word "static content", If Nginx ever becomes better at serving dynamic content, my ideology may change. Personally, I have used Nginx as a load balancing server and as a reverse proxy server, and it works wonders. I have a wordpress blog along with a Drupal site I have been working on and off as a project that I run, and I have tested load times of Apache vs Nginx and in most cases Nginx is slower in serving dynamic content.

 

As a matter of fact, mind if I get some input on one of the projects I've been working on with some of my friends? Can I PM you the URL?

I'm not much of a web nut, just dipped my toes in the water long enough to know a thing or two. I'd rather write the web server itself than the code that it parses. 

[ionbasa]

I'm not much of a web nut, just dipped my toes in the water long enough to know a thing or two. I'd rather write the web server itself than the code that it parses. 

Ahh, no problem. Don't feel bad. I'm in the same boat as you. I manage the more technical aspects of the project, a college new website a few of my colleagues had an idea about.

ITs using Drupal as the CMS at the moment, but that might change in the future. Hadn't got any work done on in a month or two, unfortunately my life tends to be busy with University studies.

[Butterfat Ranch]

I have the same feelings on this as you do!

The default LAMP package on any distro is a joke. Nginx is cool to play with, although, I don't know if its necessarily 'production ready'.

 

What makes you think NGINX isn't production ready?

 

The infrastructure I manage uses a single NGINX server that is our reverse-proxy gateway. Depending on the request, it will proxy back to an additional NGINX server that acts as a round-robin load balancer in front of a few dozen Rails instances. In the time we've been running this setup, we've never had NGINX crash. The only downtime has come from patching and an outage from moving ISPs.

 

That being said, it's also been a joy to manage. You couldn't pay me to go back to httpd!

[ionbasa]

What makes you think NGINX isn't production ready?

 

The infrastructure I manage uses a single NGINX server that is our reverse-proxy gateway. Depending on the request, it will proxy back to an additional NGINX server that acts as a round-robin load balancer in front of a few dozen Rails instances. In the time we've been running this setup, we've never had NGINX crash. The only downtime has come from patching and an outage from moving ISPs.

 

That being said, it's also been a joy to manage. You couldn't pay me to go back to httpd!

See: 

 

Theres that word "static content", If Nginx ever becomes better at serving dynamic content, my ideology may change. Personally, I have used Nginx as a load balancing server and as a reverse proxy server, and it works wonders. I have a wordpress blog along with a Drupal site I have been working on and off as a project that I run, and I have tested load times of Apache vs Nginx and in most cases Nginx is slower in serving dynamic content.

 

...

When I say slower, I mean down to the milliseconds. Also, I have gotten used to httpd.

 

Nginx is great in the times I tested it, but at the moment, I have no real reason to move or change my current hosting setup. Maybe once I retire my aging Dell 2950 Poweredge II, I can setup Nginx instead on my new server.

[Opcode]

I've also looked at LiteSpeed (which seems to have an open source variant now). Never got around to testing its performance tho.

[Butterfat Ranch]

See: 

 

When I say slower, I mean down to the milliseconds. Also, I have gotten used to httpd.

 

Nginx is great in the times I tested it, but at the moment, I have no real reason to move or change my current hosting setup. Maybe once I retire my aging Dell 2950 Poweredge II, I can setup Nginx instead on my new server.

 

I think that's the bigger point; why change something that works. I don't know of any server admin who'd argue in favor of migrating without reason.

 

What caught me was that you felt NGINX was not production ready and I couldn't figure out why. Makes sense to me now that it's not production ready for you and that's cool.

[ionbasa]

I think that's the bigger point; why change something that works. I don't know of any server admin who'd argue in favor of migrating without reason.

 

What caught me was that you felt NGINX was not production ready and I couldn't figure out why. Makes sense to me now that it's not production ready for you and that's cool.

I'll be more careful in phrasing my statements next time . But yes, you have the right idea.