Rocky Linux Still Lacks Major Version Upgrade Support—And Thats a Problem

Rocky Linux: The Upgrade Hurdle That Needs Urgent Attention

At Tech Today, we understand the critical importance of stable operating systems for businesses and individual users alike. For years, distributions like CentOS Linux served as the bedrock for countless deployments, offering a reliable, free alternative to commercial Linux options. The demise of CentOS Linux led to the creation of several Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) derivatives, with Rocky Linux emerging as a prominent and highly anticipated successor. Developed by the Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation (RESF), founded by CentOS creator Gregory Kurtzer, Rocky Linux has garnered significant attention for its commitment to binary compatibility with RHEL, aiming to provide the same level of stability and predictability. However, as our comprehensive analysis reveals, a significant deficiency is currently hindering its widespread adoption and long-term viability for many users: the lack of in-place major version upgrade support. This absence is not merely an inconvenience; it represents a substantial operational challenge for organizations that rely on seamless transitions between major releases, a factor that cannot be overstated in its impact on the Linux ecosystem.

The Promise of Rocky Linux: Stability and Compatibility

When CentOS Linux announced its shift to a development preview of CentOS Stream, a significant void was created in the Linux community. Many users, particularly those in enterprise environments, depended on CentOS for its stability, long-term support, and strict adherence to RHEL compatibility. This compatibility meant that software developed and tested on RHEL could be deployed with confidence on CentOS without modification. This predictability was paramount for mission-critical applications, regulatory compliance, and the overall efficiency of IT operations.

Rocky Linux stepped into this breach with a clear mission: to provide a free, community-driven, RHEL-compatible operating system that would continue the legacy of CentOS Linux. The project’s rapid development and strong backing from the community, including many individuals who were instrumental in the original CentOS project, quickly positioned it as a leading contender among the RHEL rebuilds. The core promise of Rocky Linux lies in its “bug-for-bug” compatibility with RHEL, ensuring that a system running Rocky Linux can run the same applications and configurations as a system running RHEL. This commitment to compatibility is a cornerstone of its appeal, attracting users who prioritize a predictable and stable platform for their servers, cloud instances, and development environments.

The RESF’s dedication to long-term support for each major Rocky Linux release further amplifies this appeal. Unlike rolling-release distributions that undergo constant updates and potential disruptions, Rocky Linux aims to offer a fixed release cycle with extended support periods, mirroring the enterprise-grade support that RHEL provides. This approach is ideal for organizations that need to maintain stable infrastructure over extended periods, minimizing the need for frequent and potentially disruptive system overhauls. The focus on security patches and bug fixes, delivered reliably throughout the support lifecycle, reassures users that their Rocky Linux deployments will remain secure and functional.

The Rocky Linux Upgrade Dilemma: A Significant Operational Hurdle

Despite its many strengths, the current inability to perform in-place upgrades between major versions of Rocky Linux presents a considerable obstacle for a significant segment of its user base. For many seasoned Linux administrators and organizations with mature IT infrastructures, the ability to upgrade an operating system from one major release to the next without a full system reinstallation is not just a convenience; it is an essential operational requirement. This process, often referred to as a “dist-upgrade” or “in-place upgrade,” allows for a smoother, more efficient, and less disruptive transition, minimizing downtime and the risk of configuration errors.

Consider an organization managing hundreds or even thousands of servers. Performing a clean installation for each server when migrating from, for example, Rocky Linux 8 to Rocky Linux 9, would be an incredibly labor-intensive and time-consuming process. Each server would need to be backed up, the existing installation wiped, the new version installed, and then the entire system reconfigured from scratch. This includes reinstalling applications, restoring configurations, reapplying security policies, and re-establishing network settings. The potential for human error increases exponentially with each manual step, and the downtime required for such an operation could have significant business implications, especially for services that require high availability.

Furthermore, the cost of downtime is a tangible expense for any business. Extended maintenance windows required for extensive re-imaging and reconfiguration translate directly into lost productivity, potential revenue loss, and reputational damage. Therefore, a robust in-place upgrade path is a critical factor in the total cost of ownership (TCO) of an operating system. Distributions that offer this capability inherently reduce the operational burden and associated costs for their users, making them a more attractive option for large-scale deployments.

The absence of this functionality in Rocky Linux forces users into a “forklift upgrade” scenario, which is fundamentally less desirable for many scenarios. This reliance on a complete reinstallation is a significant deterrent for organizations that are accustomed to the upgrade paths offered by distributions like Debian, Ubuntu LTS, or even the former CentOS Linux (which, while not always seamless, offered more direct upgrade paths between minor versions and a clearer upgrade strategy for major versions). This difference in upgrade methodology can be a deal-breaker for IT departments that prioritize operational efficiency and minimal disruption.

Why In-Place Upgrades Matter: A Deep Dive into Operational Benefits

The importance of in-place major version upgrades cannot be adequately emphasized. This capability offers a multifaceted set of benefits that directly impact the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and stability of IT operations. Let us explore these advantages in greater detail.

Minimizing Downtime and Ensuring Business Continuity

The primary advantage of an in-place upgrade is the dramatic reduction in system downtime. Instead of a complete system wipe and reinstallation, which can require hours or even days of downtime per server, an in-place upgrade typically involves a series of automated scripts and package replacements that run directly on the live system. While some services may need to be temporarily stopped, the overall downtime is usually measured in minutes rather than hours. This is crucial for businesses that operate 24/7 or have strict service level agreements (SLAs) that mandate minimal disruption. Business continuity is directly supported by the ability to seamlessly transition to a newer, more secure, and feature-rich operating system version with minimal impact on ongoing operations.

Preserving Configuration and Customizations

One of the most painstaking aspects of a clean installation is the meticulous process of re-applying custom configurations, user accounts, permissions, and installed software. This includes web server configurations, database settings, firewall rules, application-specific parameters, and a myriad of other customizations that make a system function as intended. An in-place upgrade is designed to preserve these configurations as much as possible. The upgrade process intelligently handles the migration of configuration files, updating them where necessary to be compatible with the new version while retaining custom modifications. This saves countless hours of manual work and significantly reduces the risk of misconfigurations that could lead to application failures or security vulnerabilities.

Reducing Operational Costs and Resource Allocation

The labor-intensive nature of clean installations translates directly into higher operational costs. IT staff must dedicate significant time and resources to execute these upgrades across a large server fleet. This diverts valuable personnel from other critical tasks such as strategic planning, security hardening, and application development. By enabling in-place upgrades, organizations can reallocate these resources more efficiently, focusing on value-adding activities rather than repetitive system maintenance. The reduction in manual effort also minimizes the need for extensive documentation and checklists associated with complex reinstallation procedures.

Simplifying the Migration Process and Reducing Risk

The process of migrating from one operating system version to another is inherently risky. A clean installation introduces a higher degree of risk due to the sheer number of manual steps involved. Each manual intervention is an opportunity for error, whether it’s a typo in a command, an incorrect configuration setting, or a forgotten step in the reinstallation process. An in-place upgrade, when properly implemented, automates many of these steps, significantly reducing the probability of human error. Furthermore, the upgrade process is typically tested and validated by the distribution maintainers, providing a more predictable and reliable migration path.

Accelerating the Adoption of New Features and Security Updates

The inability to perform in-place upgrades can act as a significant barrier to adopting newer versions of an operating system, even when those versions offer critical security patches or valuable new features. Organizations may delay upgrades to avoid the substantial effort involved in a clean installation, thereby potentially exposing themselves to security vulnerabilities that have been addressed in later releases. A smooth in-place upgrade path encourages the timely adoption of new versions, ensuring that systems benefit from the latest security enhancements, performance improvements, and new functionalities, thereby maintaining a more robust and up-to-date infrastructure.

The Rocky Linux Development Road: What’s Missing and What’s Needed

The Rocky Linux development team is undoubtedly aware of the demand for in-place upgrade capabilities. The project has been actively working on this front, and we have seen progress in supporting upgrades between minor versions of Rocky Linux. However, the leap between major versions, such as from Rocky Linux 8 to Rocky Linux 9, is a fundamentally more complex undertaking. This involves significant changes in underlying libraries, system configurations, and kernel versions, all of which must be handled with extreme care to maintain compatibility and stability.

The current approach for major version upgrades in Rocky Linux necessitates a clean installation. This is often achieved through cloud images or installation media that allow for a fresh deployment. While this is functional for new deployments or for systems where downtime and re-configuration are acceptable, it falls short for existing, long-running installations that have been carefully tuned and populated with data and configurations.

The Rocky Enterprise Software Foundation (RESF) faces the considerable challenge of developing and rigorously testing a robust in-place upgrade mechanism that is both reliable and compatible with the RHEL release cycle. This requires a deep understanding of the intricacies of RHEL’s architecture and a meticulous approach to package management and configuration file handling. The community’s expectation is high, given the precedent set by previous CentOS versions and other Linux distributions.

We anticipate that the development of this crucial feature will involve:

The success of Rocky Linux as a long-term replacement for CentOS Linux hinges significantly on the delivery of this in-place major version upgrade support. Without it, many organizations will continue to face operational challenges that could lead them to seek alternative distributions that offer a more streamlined upgrade path, even if those alternatives have different strengths or commercial models.

Alternatives and Considerations for Rocky Linux Users

For users who find the current upgrade limitations of Rocky Linux problematic, several alternative strategies and distributions warrant consideration:

1. AlmaLinux: A Direct Competitor with a Different Upgrade Philosophy

AlmaLinux, another prominent RHEL-based distribution, has historically offered a more direct upgrade path between major versions. While the specifics of their upgrade tools and their effectiveness can evolve, AlmaLinux has often been perceived as having a more mature solution for in-place major version upgrades. For organizations that prioritize this functionality, AlmaLinux is a strong contender and a direct competitor to Rocky Linux in the RHEL-ecosystem rebuild space. Users should investigate the current state of AlmaLinux’s upgrade tools to determine if they meet their specific needs.

2. Oracle Linux: Enterprise-Grade Features and Support

Oracle Linux is another free, RHEL-compatible distribution that offers a robust set of features and support options. Oracle provides its “Ksplice” technology, which allows for kernel and user-space updates without requiring a reboot, a level of granularity that significantly reduces downtime. While Oracle Linux is backed by a commercial entity, it remains available for download and use without cost, and its Unbreakable Enterprise Kernel (UEK) offers performance advantages for certain workloads. Oracle Linux also provides clear upgrade paths between major versions.

3. Debian and Ubuntu LTS: Established Alternatives with Proven Upgrade Paths

For users not strictly tied to the RHEL ecosystem, Debian and Ubuntu LTS (Long Term Support) releases offer extremely stable and well-supported platforms with proven and reliable in-place major version upgrade mechanisms. Both distributions have a long history of facilitating seamless transitions between major releases, with extensive documentation and community support for these processes. While they are not RHEL-compatible, their widespread adoption, comprehensive package repositories, and mature upgrade tooling make them excellent alternatives for many use cases, especially where application compatibility with RHEL is not a strict requirement.

4. Strategic Planning for Rocky Linux Deployments

For organizations committed to Rocky Linux and willing to navigate the current upgrade limitations, strategic planning is paramount. This involves:

The Verdict: Rocky Linux Needs a Solid Upgrade Path to Thrive

Rocky Linux has made commendable strides in establishing itself as a reliable, RHEL-compatible operating system. Its commitment to community-driven development and binary compatibility with RHEL makes it an attractive option for many users seeking an alternative to CentOS Linux. However, the absence of in-place major version upgrade support remains a significant stumbling block. This deficiency directly impacts operational efficiency, increases costs, and poses a substantial risk for organizations that rely on smooth, predictable system transitions.

At Tech Today, we believe that for Rocky Linux to truly fulfill its promise and achieve widespread, long-term adoption, the development of a robust and reliable in-place major version upgrade mechanism is not just desirable, but absolutely essential. Until this critical functionality is implemented and thoroughly proven, users with significant existing deployments will likely continue to evaluate alternative distributions that offer a more seamless path to newer operating system versions. The Linux community is watching, and the success of Rocky Linux in its ambitious goals will, in large part, be measured by its ability to overcome this upgrade hurdle. The future stability and growth of the Rocky Linux ecosystem depend on it.

You also may like 〣〣