Which OS is best now that CentOS has been discontinued?

Hello,

So with the recent announcement of CentOS coming to and end i find myself wondering which is the best option for a new Dedicated server.

Do I still go with CentOS 7 or is there an alternative option now?

I know that CentOS is only EOL in 2024 and CentOS 8 is EOL now in this year 2021. So it makes very little sense to go with CentOS 8.

Any opinions welcome


Similar Content



do you use any control panel to manage your backup server ?

Hi,

i use centos with cpanel,
and set cpanel account for each hosting srver to run backup with jetbackup.

about the backup server,
do you use any control panel to manage them ?
or just use centos and create normal user ?

reboot when installing centos 7 with mdadm ?

Hi,

i have 10 hdds,i set the partitions

sda1 for /boot/efi,
sda2~sdj2 for /boot with mdadm raid1,
sda3~sdj3 for swap with mdadm raid10,
sda4~sdj4 for /with mdadm raid10,

when centos shows install finished and i can reboot,
the mdadm is still resync and very slow,
if i reboot,the server can not boot into os at all.

do i make wrong on which steps ?

How to set the public IP address of a KVM virtual machine?

Hello,

I installed cockpit on my CentOS 7 server, then use cockpit created a virtual machine and installed another CentOS inside it, now I want to access the vm from my pc, but I don't know how to configure the public IP address of the vm. Help me please, thanks in advance.

How to configure static routes CentOS/RHEL 8 for using multiple NICs with different internet connect

Hello,

I have servers with multiple NICs connected to different internet lines.

In the past on CentOS 6 and 7 I could easily setup the NICs by using the following commands for each NIC(I did not use NetworkManager)
ip route add 123.123.123.123/28 dev eno1 table 1
ip route add default via 123.123.123.123 table 1

ip rule add from 123.123.123.123/28 table 1 priority 100

(while using a different table number and priority for each NIC)

and to make the above manual commands persistent, convert to the corresponding files in
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eno1
123.123.123.123/28 dev eno1 table 1
default via 123.123.123.123 table 1

/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/rule-eno1
from 123.123.123.123/28 table 1 priority 100

However I am not really that familiar with network commands, and can't seem to figure out how to get it to work in CentOS/RHEL 8.
What are the corresponding commands in CentOS/RHEL 8 to make the above settings persistent?
The manual "ip route" and "ip rule" commands work fine.

Related links:
https://access.redhat.com/documentat...in_ifcfg_files
https://access.redhat.com/documentat...ing-networking

Thank you.

Dual CPU vs Single CPU Dedicated Server

What is better a Dual CPU or Single CPU Dedicated Server at the same Benchmark Rating?

I have been searching for a new server to put CentOS 8 then cloudlinux on then move my websites and 4 clients over to it and I do not see a lot of Dual CPU servers.

What modules should we need for faster video buffering on CentOS 7 Dedicated Server?

The video bufferings when embedded on other websites are so low. It waits a lot to buffer. So which modules should we install to make it faster?
Server: CentOS7 , Webmin Dedicated Server
Videos encoded with: mp4 Requiring: Fast Static video streaming.

Is anyone having issues with CentOS 7 filesystem quota enabling?

I just setup a server 2 x 500GB SSD - CentOS 7.9 - cPanel 94.0.2, and the filesystem will not allow quota function because the default is quotas disabled.

I ran the cPanel tool to enable quotas and it returns true with notice to reboot, but it remains disabled

Code:
journaled quota support: kernel supports, user space tools supports (available)
UUID=627a44c8-1c7b-4a4f-8236-3b83f82300a5 (already configured quotas = 1).
UUID=7bd01ba6-af01-423f-986a-84a588c2a404 (already configured quotas = 0).
Updating Quota Files..........Done
Quotas have been enabled and updated.

You must reboot the server to enable XFS® filesystem quotas.
Has anyone had this issue and did you resolve it? If yes, what was the method?

Welp, Guess I need a Managed Dedicated Server Provider...who do you recommend?

This current admin company is driving me insane! They are literally making my server worse...

I have lost so much money in production time of not being able to develop websites!

This sever is for basic business sites.

So I am moving this server from dedicated self-managed (with 3rd party admin) and now need a fully managed server.

This is just to host multiple websites. so we very rarely have issues on the server.

I need cpanel/whm

I am used to having multiple processors with multiple cores, but they are quite old, so maybe the more powerful processors can beat it?

It's an old server but has been a workhorse for development with no real issues.

i'd like the equivalent or better. Ideally under $200 month ($150 would be great!)

-- is this even possible?

who do you recommend? Any black friday/cyber Monday specials?



--------current server specs---
Intel 2x L5630
Dedicated Server
Operating System: cPanel/WHM (CentOS 7 x64)
Bandwidth: 20TB on 1Gbps Port
Service Title: Intel 2x L5630
Service Options: Service Plan: Intel 2x Xeon L5630 Westmere 4-Core Dell Node
Operating System: Linux- CentOS 64-bit with cPanel/WHM 64-bit
Hard Drive 1: 500GB HDD
Hard Drive 2: None (+$0.00)
Hard Drive 3: None (+$0.00)
Hard Drive 4: None (+$0.00)
Hard Drive 5: None (+$0.00)
Hard Drive 6: None (+$0.00)
Raid Card- LSI 9260-8i 6G w/ 512MB Cache: Included / No Raid (+$0.00)
Power Supply: Dual Power (+$0.00)
RAM: 24GB (+$0.00)
Bandwidth: 20.0TB on 1Gbps Port (+$0.00)
IPv4 Addresses: 5 Usable (/29) (+$0.00)

I can't install cPanel over CentOS Linux release 8.4.2105

Hello.

after of we install CentOS 8.4.2105 and BEFORE of install cPanel:
PHP Code: [root@pepsi]# systemctl --no-pager -l restart network.service
[root@pepsi]# systemctl restart network.service
[root@pepsi]# 
after of we install cPanel 96.0 (build 9):
PHP Code: [root@pepsi]# systemctl --no-pager -l restart network.service 
(the connection to server DEAD, not exist response, result, "second line")

I believe the most important file aboout netwrok service is Code:
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
and this is the content: Code:
DEVICE=enp2s0
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=none
IPADDR=My.Ip.Public
PREFIX=32
GATEWAY=Ip.For.Customers
DEFROUTE=yes

IPV6INIT=yes
IPV6ADDR=Ip.For.Customers::2/64
IPV6_DEFAULTGW=fe80::1
IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes
please some idea about how we can fix the error?



in forms cPanel nobody reply, perhaps because MODERATOR reply "open ticket", and yes, we open ticket but:


The answer from cPanel support:


"""We are not able to assist with networking configurations, the networking configuration of your server is not modified or configured by cPanel/WHM this would be best performed by your host/data center or a qualified systems administrator. BYE."""


The answer from ISP support:


""" We give to you TEMPLATE of CentOS 8, if you connect in begin, then NOT IS our problem. Reinstall template. BYE. """

Trouble with Setting Up VPS Correctly on Ryzen Dedicated Server

Hi all,

Sorry if I posted this in the wrong forum; had trouble deciding whether to put it here or in the VPS forum.

I am running to some trouble with trying to properly expose a particular CPU topology to a VPS on a CentOS 8 server running KVM and Virtualizor, and was hoping you might be able to help. Not sure if I am doing something wrong and/or not understanding something.

I have an AMD Ryzen 5600X dedicated server with 6 cores and 12 threads. I created a VPS to which I am trying to assign 8 VCPUs (4 cores with 2 threads per core for a total of 8 threads). In Virtualizor, I set CPU units to 1000, CPU cores to 8, and CPU percent to 800. I then select the CPU topology option and specify 1 for sockets, 4 for cores and 2 for threads. CPU mode is host-passthrough. However, when using the lscpu command within the VPS or when checking /proc/cpuinfo, the topology shows up as 1 socket, 8 cores and only 1 thread per core. Does anyone know why this is? Would this affect performance within the VPS at all (that is, are applications not able to take advantage of hyperthreading, or does it even matter that the topology shows up this way)? The topology shows up as expected on an Intel E-2136 server that I tested on, so not sure what the difference is here.

Thanks for any tips you can provide!