Download RHEL4 - Redhat

This is a discussion on Download RHEL4 - Redhat ; Two questions: Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com. What linux kernel is RHEL4? Best regards, Kenneth...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Download RHEL4

  1. Download RHEL4

    Two questions:
    Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.

    What linux kernel is RHEL4?

    Best regards,
    Kenneth

  2. Re: Download RHEL4

    > Two questions:
    > Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.


    Buy a subscription and you will be able to download it - RHEL is not
    freeware.

    > What linux kernel is RHEL4?


    2.6.9-x



  3. Re: Download RHEL4

    On 17 Okt., 17:07, "Kjeld2" <6s5g...@gmail.REMOVE.com> wrote:
    > > Two questions:
    > > Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.

    >
    > Buy a subscription and you will be able to download it - RHEL is not
    > freeware.


    A subscription on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I assume? (I only see info
    on RHEL5, not 4).

    Thanks.

    /Kenneth

  4. Re: Download RHEL4

    On 10/17/2008 06:03 AM, Kenneth Brun Nielsen sent:
    > Two questions:
    > Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.
    >
    > What linux kernel is RHEL4?
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Kenneth


    Hello Kenneth:

    You will need to know if you want the AS, ES or the WS variant and what
    type of architecture you'd wish to operate with. Others will suggest
    that you consider Tikanga RHEL 5 (5.2), rather than Nahant RHEL 4 (4.7).

    The latest Nahant Red Hat Kernel is version 2.6.9-78
    The latest Tikanga Red Hat Kernel is version 2.6.18-92
    However, you can compile your own Kernel and run the latest/greatest.



    Best wishes.

    --
    1PW

    @?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

  5. Re: Download RHEL4

    On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:03:40 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:

    > Two questions:
    > Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.
    >
    > What linux kernel is RHEL4?
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Kenneth


    RHEL requires a subscription however there are free clones available which
    are built from Redhat's source RPMs. The main clones are CentOS and
    Scientific Linux. Get CentOS from

    http://www.centos.org/

  6. Re: Download RHEL4

    On 17 Okt., 18:25, 1PW wrote:


    > You will need to know if you want the AS, ES or the WS variant and what
    > type of architecture you'd wish to operate with. *Others will suggest
    > that you consider Tikanga RHEL 5 (5.2), rather than Nahant RHEL 4 (4.7).


    Thanks, 1PW.

    The software (quite a lot of components) are all supported by RHEL4
    (not more specific than that) - so it has to be RHEL4.

    I couldn't find the RHELs at your link, but that might be because I
    didn't subscribe yet (?).

    Best regards,
    Kenneth

  7. Re: Download RHEL4

    On 10/17/2008 10:32 AM, Kenneth Brun Nielsen sent:
    > On 17 Okt., 18:25, 1PW wrote:
    >
    >
    >> You will need to know if you want the AS, ES or the WS variant and what
    >> type of architecture you'd wish to operate with. Others will suggest
    >> that you consider Tikanga RHEL 5 (5.2), rather than Nahant RHEL 4 (4.7).

    >
    > Thanks, 1PW.
    >
    > The software (quite a lot of components) are all supported by RHEL4
    > (not more specific than that) - so it has to be RHEL4.
    >
    > I couldn't find the RHELs at your link, but that might be because I
    > didn't subscribe yet (?).
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Kenneth


    Yes, you must use a username/password for the first URL I sent you.
    Your subscription would also include technical support.

    However -

    In Denmark, one of the mirror sites for CentOS is at:



    --
    1PW

    @?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

  8. Re: Download RHEL4

    Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:
    > Two questions:
    > Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.
    >
    > What linux kernel is RHEL4?
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Kenneth


    For testing purposes, you can download CentOS 4. For commercial support, I'm
    sure they will sell it to you.

    RHEL is always a bit out of date, as server software, and RHEL 4 is well out
    of date with RHEL 5.2 out and stable. Why would you want to use RHEL 4?

  9. Re: Download RHEL4

    On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:30:58 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    > Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:
    >> Two questions:
    >> Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.
    >>
    >> What linux kernel is RHEL4?
    >>
    >> Best regards,
    >> Kenneth

    >
    > For testing purposes, you can download CentOS 4. For commercial support,
    > I'm sure they will sell it to you.
    >
    > RHEL is always a bit out of date, as server software, and RHEL 4 is well
    > out of date with RHEL 5.2 out and stable. Why would you want to use RHEL
    > 4?


    He might really need 4 rather than 5, 5 isn't perfectly compatible with 4
    although it's mostly compatible. I've just been evaluating Certify from
    Synopsys and it requires RHEL 4. I tried it on CentOS5.2 and it core
    dumped on me so they mean it when they say RHEL 4 (BTW when something is
    RHEL4 certified and not RHEL5 that seems like a sure sign that the company
    isn't maintaining the code, 5 has been out for a couple of years now so
    there is no excuse for not supporting it unless you've fired all of your
    programmers).

    I think the best way to deal with software compatibility issues is with
    VMs. The problem with RHEL is that it uses obsolete kernels, in the case
    of RHEL4 the kernel is an antique. Having to run RHEL4 as a host will
    really limit your hardware choices. However if you use something else as
    the host, say RHEL5/CentOS5 maybe with a custom kernel if necessary, and
    put a RHEL4 VM on top then you be able to solve both the hardware and
    software compatibility problems.

  10. Re: Download RHEL4

    On Oct 17, 7:20*pm, General Schvantzkopf
    wrote:
    > On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:03:40 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:



    > RHEL requires a subscription however there are free clones available which
    > are built from Redhat's source RPMs. The main clones are CentOS and
    > Scientific Linux.


    Are they similar (from any application's point of view)? Let me point
    of, that I'm not in a "trial-and-error" business. I can't afford to
    make an error due to some strange divergences between the guaranteed
    OS (RHEL4) and any ALMOST similar OS, ultimately ending up in
    differerent results.

    Best regards,
    Kenneth

  11. Re: Download RHEL4

    On Oct 17, 9:30*pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    > RHEL is always a bit out of date, as server software, and RHEL 4 is well out
    > of date with RHEL 5.2 out and stable. Why would you want to use RHEL 4?


    In short terms: because I'm encouraged to do so by the application
    vendors (their common guaranteed OS is RHEL4).

    Best regards,
    Kenneth

  12. Re: Download RHEL4

    On Oct 17, 11:28*pm, General Schvantzkopf
    wrote:

    > I think the best way to deal with software compatibility issues is with
    > VMs. The problem with RHEL is that it uses obsolete kernels, in the case
    > of RHEL4 the kernel is an antique. Having to run RHEL4 as a host will
    > really limit your hardware choices. However if you use something else as
    > the host, say RHEL5/CentOS5 maybe with a custom kernel if necessary, and
    > put a RHEL4 VM on top then you be able to solve both the hardware and
    > software compatibility problems.


    Sounds interesting. Any recommendations if I want to look more closely
    at VM? How about performance. A part of our proces includes large
    demanding simulations of complexities. Is VM really efficient (I
    assume some performance overhead is present)?

    Best regards,
    Kenneth

  13. Re: Download RHEL4

    On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:20:53 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:

    > On Oct 17, 7:20*pm, General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    >> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:03:40 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:

    >
    >
    >> RHEL requires a subscription however there are free clones available
    >> which are built from Redhat's source RPMs. The main clones are CentOS
    >> and Scientific Linux.

    >
    > Are they similar (from any application's point of view)? Let me point
    > of, that I'm not in a "trial-and-error" business. I can't afford to make
    > an error due to some strange divergences between the guaranteed OS
    > (RHEL4) and any ALMOST similar OS, ultimately ending up in differerent
    > results.
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Kenneth


    The Clones are exactly the same in terms of executable code. The place
    where they differ is in identification strings so if an application checks
    to see if it's RHEL 5 it might print out a warning if it sees that it's
    CentOS 5 but it will almost always run.

    For Virtualization I use VMware Server, both 1.0.7 and 2.0. Server is
    free. 1.x only supports 4G VMs, 2.0 increased the memory limit to 8G. The
    performance limitation of VMware Server is in IO. If you want the VM to be
    able to access host directories you have to do it through NFS or SAMBA. If
    you are running entirely on a Virtual disk rather than accessing a host
    directory the performance is at least 90% of native. If you aren't IO
    bound then Server is a great solution. If you are IO bound you would want
    to consider one of there paid for products. I've only tried Workstation
    which looks exactly like Server except that it has the capability of
    mapping a host directory into the VM. Mapped directories fix the IO
    performance problem, it's almost the same performance as native.

    I haven't tried VirtualBox lately. The last time I looked, VirtualBox was
    limited to 2G of memory per VM which is useless for my purposes. That was
    a while ago, they may have fixed that by now. VirtualBox has the directory
    mapping feature included in the free version.

    The other alternative is KVM. Redhat just bought Qumranet which is the
    company behind KVM. KVM is very promising, but it's not ready for real
    work yet. When I looked at it last spring the performance of VMs that did
    no IO that was external to the VM was better than VMware, it was around
    95% of native. However the virtual IO performance was horrendous, I found
    that my Verilog simulations took four times as long, as they did on VMware
    Server, if I was running on an NFS mounted directory. When I queried their
    forums they claimed that there was a way to fix the performance problem,
    however it was sufficiently complicated at the time that I didn't think it
    was worth my time. The control GUI on Fedora 9 also wasn't very usable,
    the GUI for VMware Server 1 is great, 2 switched to a browser based UI
    which is slower that the old GUI but it's still very usable. My guess is
    that KVM will be much closer to usable in Fedora 10, but VMware will still
    be the VM of choice. Also you can run VMware on a CentOS or RHEL host, you
    won't be able to run KVM on RHEL until RHEL 6.



  14. Re: Download RHEL4

    General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    > On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:20:53 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:
    >
    >> On Oct 17, 7:20 pm, General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 06:03:40 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:

    >>
    >>> RHEL requires a subscription however there are free clones available
    >>> which are built from Redhat's source RPMs. The main clones are CentOS
    >>> and Scientific Linux.

    >> Are they similar (from any application's point of view)? Let me point
    >> of, that I'm not in a "trial-and-error" business. I can't afford to make
    >> an error due to some strange divergences between the guaranteed OS
    >> (RHEL4) and any ALMOST similar OS, ultimately ending up in differerent
    >> results.
    >>
    >> Best regards,
    >> Kenneth

    >
    > The Clones are exactly the same in terms of executable code. The place
    > where they differ is in identification strings so if an application checks
    > to see if it's RHEL 5 it might print out a warning if it sees that it's
    > CentOS 5 but it will almost always run.


    No, they're not. Please don't spread this misinformation. CentOS 4, for
    example, uses Yum, which finds the nearest repository from around the world,
    rather than up2date, which is a nightmare to maintain and has a much more
    awkward backend. It also has an 'extras' repository that contains a good,
    working copy of 'mock' for building software packages in a well-defined
    environment, and NTFS kernel modules.

    RHEL 5, for example, also does this amazingly stupid split-up of its
    components into 'Server', 'Supplementary', 'Productivity', etc. The CentOS
    breakdown is rather different and based on licensing and whether it's in the
    RHEL source tree, such as 'centosplus'

    The differences are normally very modest. CentOS add-on components normally
    behave extremely well with RHEL, and I've even written tools to turn a CentOS
    machine to RHEL, and vice versa.


    > For Virtualization I use VMware Server, both 1.0.7 and 2.0. Server is
    > free. 1.x only supports 4G VMs, 2.0 increased the memory limit to 8G. The
    > performance limitation of VMware Server is in IO. If you want the VM to be
    > able to access host directories you have to do it through NFS or SAMBA. If
    > you are running entirely on a Virtual disk rather than accessing a host
    > directory the performance is at least 90% of native. If you aren't IO
    > bound then Server is a great solution. If you are IO bound you would want
    > to consider one of there paid for products. I've only tried Workstation
    > which looks exactly like Server except that it has the capability of
    > mapping a host directory into the VM. Mapped directories fix the IO
    > performance problem, it's almost the same performance as native.
    >
    > I haven't tried VirtualBox lately. The last time I looked, VirtualBox was
    > limited to 2G of memory per VM which is useless for my purposes. That was
    > a while ago, they may have fixed that by now. VirtualBox has the directory
    > mapping feature included in the free version.
    >
    > The other alternative is KVM. Redhat just bought Qumranet which is the
    > company behind KVM. KVM is very promising, but it's not ready for real
    > work yet. When I looked at it last spring the performance of VMs that did
    > no IO that was external to the VM was better than VMware, it was around
    > 95% of native. However the virtual IO performance was horrendous, I found
    > that my Verilog simulations took four times as long, as they did on VMware
    > Server, if I was running on an NFS mounted directory. When I queried their
    > forums they claimed that there was a way to fix the performance problem,
    > however it was sufficiently complicated at the time that I didn't think it
    > was worth my time. The control GUI on Fedora 9 also wasn't very usable,
    > the GUI for VMware Server 1 is great, 2 switched to a browser based UI
    > which is slower that the old GUI but it's still very usable. My guess is
    > that KVM will be much closer to usable in Fedora 10, but VMware will still
    > be the VM of choice. Also you can run VMware on a CentOS or RHEL host, you
    > won't be able to run KVM on RHEL until RHEL 6.


    Xen works just fine on RHEL and CentOS, and has for years. I find that
    VMware's command line tools bite goat rocks: the concept that you should be
    running a Windows box to manage a server, or even an X session, seems welded
    to their brainstems, and it's just not necessary.

    Xen doesn't have this problem, although their GUI's could use some maturation
    and a careful reading of Eric Raymond's famous rant about CUPS and open source
    interfaces.

  15. Re: Download RHEL4

    On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:04:40 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:

    > General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:20:53 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:


    > Xen works just fine on RHEL and CentOS, and has for years. I find that
    > VMware's command line tools bite goat rocks: the concept that you should
    > be running a Windows box to manage a server, or even an X session, seems
    > welded to their brainstems, and it's just not necessary.
    >
    > Xen doesn't have this problem, although their GUI's could use some
    > maturation and a careful reading of Eric Raymond's famous rant about
    > CUPS and open source interfaces.


    The only thing that requires the command line for VMware is the
    installation script, after that it has a Linux based GUI, there is no need
    to use Windows for anything. Server 1 has the VMware Server Console,
    you'll find it on the Systems Tools menu on Fedora. They replaced it with
    a browser based GUI in Server 2, the default port is HTTP on the host
    machine (you can change that if you want) so all you have to do is access
    http://hostname and the Server 2 management tool comes up.

    RH seems to have given up on Xen. The problem is that Xen isn't part of
    the kernel, it requires a patch which doesn't keep up with the kernel's
    progress. In Fedora 8 they shipped an older Xen kernel, I think it was a
    2.6.21 kernel, In Fedora 9 they dropped support for Xen altogether. They
    stated that they were going to bring it back in F10 but now that they've
    bought Qumranet I would guess that Xen is off the table forever in favor
    of KVM. KVM is part of the mainstream kernel which makes it much easier to
    integrate into a Linux distro. Also Xen was bought by Citrix which is a
    Windows house which explains why it's not keeping up in the Linux space.
    It also means that it's doomed, Microsoft is bundling Hyper-V which by all
    reports is a first rate VM, and VMware is well entrenched in the
    enterprise space, which doesn't leave any room for Xen in the Windows
    world which is the only market that Citrix is interested in.

  16. Re: Download RHEL4

    On 10/20/2008 09:23 AM, Kenneth Brun Nielsen sent:
    > On Oct 17, 9:30 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> RHEL is always a bit out of date, as server software, and RHEL 4 is well out
    >> of date with RHEL 5.2 out and stable. Why would you want to use RHEL 4?

    >
    > In short terms: because I'm encouraged to do so by the application
    > vendors (their common guaranteed OS is RHEL4).
    >
    > Best regards,
    > Kenneth


    Hello Kenneth:

    Without any doubt, you have been given excellent advice by the other
    posters. Because of the constraints by your applications providers,
    maybe you could initially get everything going under Red Hat's RHEL 4,
    and when things have settled in, you could try the next most appealing
    solution using a multi boot approach. Hard Disk Drives are cheap these
    days.

    Best wishes.

    --
    1PW

    @?6A62?FEH9E=6o2@=]4@> [r4o7t]

  17. Re: Download RHEL4

    On 2008-10-17, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:
    > On 17 Okt., 17:07, "Kjeld2" <6s5g...@gmail.REMOVE.com> wrote:
    >> > Two questions:
    >> > Where can I get RHEL4? I can't find at redhat.com.

    >>
    >> Buy a subscription and you will be able to download it - RHEL is not
    >> freeware.

    >
    > A subscription on Red Hat Enterprise Linux, I assume? (I only see info
    > on RHEL5, not 4).
    >


    Once you have a subscription for RHEL, you will access to 3.x, 4.x and
    5.x - actually 2.x might also be available, too.

    Kevin

  18. Re: Download RHEL4

    General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    > On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:04:40 +0100, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
    >
    >> General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 09:20:53 -0700, Kenneth Brun Nielsen wrote:

    >
    >> Xen works just fine on RHEL and CentOS, and has for years. I find that
    >> VMware's command line tools bite goat rocks: the concept that you should
    >> be running a Windows box to manage a server, or even an X session, seems
    >> welded to their brainstems, and it's just not necessary.
    >>
    >> Xen doesn't have this problem, although their GUI's could use some
    >> maturation and a careful reading of Eric Raymond's famous rant about
    >> CUPS and open source interfaces.

    >
    > The only thing that requires the command line for VMware is the
    > installation script, after that it has a Linux based GUI, there is no need
    > to use Windows for anything. Server 1 has the VMware Server Console,
    > you'll find it on the Systems Tools menu on Fedora. They replaced it with
    > a browser based GUI in Server 2, the default port is HTTP on the host
    > machine (you can change that if you want) so all you have to do is access
    > http://hostname and the Server 2 management tool comes up.


    Well, yes. And this is *stupid*. Why should I have to start up an X session,
    or their Windows client, or the rather limited web browser (with its VNC
    dislay limitations and international keyboard issues, which go all the way
    back to the beginning of VNC, arrrggh, don't get me started on poor VNC
    integrations, I wrote the SunOS 4.1.x port of VNC years ago, and some things
    don't change!!!!) in order to start a guest domain? And if I start it from the
    command line (which for VMware Workstation, requires associating it with an X
    session of its own) hitting it with the GUI later crashes the GUI?

    > RH seems to have given up on Xen. The problem is that Xen isn't part of
    > the kernel, it requires a patch which doesn't keep up with the kernel's
    > progress. In Fedora 8 they shipped an older Xen kernel, I think it was a
    > 2.6.21 kernel, In Fedora 9 they dropped support for Xen altogether. They
    > stated that they were going to bring it back in F10 but now that they've
    > bought Qumranet I would guess that Xen is off the table forever in favor
    > of KVM. KVM is part of the mainstream kernel which makes it much easier to
    > integrate into a Linux distro. Also Xen was bought by Citrix which is a
    > Windows house which explains why it's not keeping up in the Linux space.
    > It also means that it's doomed, Microsoft is bundling Hyper-V which by all
    > reports is a first rate VM, and VMware is well entrenched in the
    > enterprise space, which doesn't leave any room for Xen in the Windows
    > world which is the only market that Citrix is interested in.


    Yes, KVM does seem to be in favor right now. We'll see how it plays out: Xen
    does have some nice features (including significant performance benefits over
    VMWare and a much better management API). Xen, and KVM according to reports,
    allow you to run an industrial server on a contemporary OS with contemporary
    software, allowing you to run contemporary tools on the server as well as in
    the guest domains. VMware Server, which does have significant performance
    benefits over VMware Workstation, absolutely does not: it's reliant on a
    proprietary 2.4 Linux kernel, it's running on RHEL 3, and putting monitoring
    tools on the server or integrating backup tools there is.... problematic.

  19. Re: Download RHEL4


    > Yes, KVM does seem to be in favor right now. We'll see how it plays out:
    > Xen does have some nice features (including significant performance
    > benefits over VMWare and a much better management API). Xen, and KVM
    > according to reports, allow you to run an industrial server on a
    > contemporary OS with contemporary software, allowing you to run
    > contemporary tools on the server as well as in the guest domains. VMware
    > Server, which does have significant performance benefits over VMware
    > Workstation, absolutely does not: it's reliant on a proprietary 2.4
    > Linux kernel, it's running on RHEL 3, and putting monitoring tools on
    > the server or integrating backup tools there is.... problematic.


    I'm running VMware Server on CentOS5.2 and on Fedora 9, there is no
    requirement for RHEL 3. VMware Workstation appears to be nearly identical
    to VMware Server, as far as I can tell the only difference is that
    Workstation can map a host directory as a client partition and Server
    can't.

    Are you confusing Server with ESX? Server runs on top of a host OS, ESX is
    the host. I haven't used ESX so I can't comment on it except to say that
    it's supposedly derived from some version of RHEL but I have no idea about
    how much of RHEL is still in it.


  20. Re: Download RHEL4

    General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    >
    >> Yes, KVM does seem to be in favor right now. We'll see how it plays out:
    >> Xen does have some nice features (including significant performance
    >> benefits over VMWare and a much better management API). Xen, and KVM
    >> according to reports, allow you to run an industrial server on a
    >> contemporary OS with contemporary software, allowing you to run
    >> contemporary tools on the server as well as in the guest domains. VMware
    >> Server, which does have significant performance benefits over VMware
    >> Workstation, absolutely does not: it's reliant on a proprietary 2.4
    >> Linux kernel, it's running on RHEL 3, and putting monitoring tools on
    >> the server or integrating backup tools there is.... problematic.

    >
    > I'm running VMware Server on CentOS5.2 and on Fedora 9, there is no
    > requirement for RHEL 3. VMware Workstation appears to be nearly identical
    > to VMware Server, as far as I can tell the only difference is that
    > Workstation can map a host directory as a client partition and Server
    > can't.
    >
    > Are you confusing Server with ESX? Server runs on top of a host OS, ESX is
    > the host. I haven't used ESX so I can't comment on it except to say that
    > it's supposedly derived from some version of RHEL but I have no idea about
    > how much of RHEL is still in it.
    >


    Yes, I was confusing it with ESX. Thank your for the correction. ESX is RHEL
    3, with much of its guts ripped out and a closed source kernel and tools
    emplanted on it.

+ Reply to Thread