CentOS 8.x CentOS 8 Now End Of Life (EOL)

Forgot to mention... last I looked, you can install a non-listed OS with them. I had to do it with AlmaLinux before they started offering it.

 

Really... for an admin that is somewhat proficient... who cares? If you are doing adequate backups, then if you decide you don't like the distro you are currently using... simply burn out a new OS on it (that is CentMinMod compatible - but my backups aren't restricted to CentMinMod reliance) and then import your existing site.... you may be down for about an hour... but if you don't mind spending a few bucks during that time, you can simply obtain another VPS instance and then migrate over to it... and once your DNS entry has replicated to the new VPS instance, kill the old one.
What I find amusing.. the "need" to now be RHEL compatible... and the CentOS stream being deemed as now "unreliable".

 

I personally agree.
I'm not interested in a one-to-one clone of RHEL. I'm interested in a reliable OS that runs CMM without any issues.

 

I would hope that someone with a site that large was actually using S3/R2 for their storage.... so if they are.. other than backing up your local data, it's not that big of deal... if you aren't using S3/R2... then you aren't performing to maximum efficiency.

Alma 8 is going to have active support releases until 05/2024 and security support 03/2029....
Rocky 8 loses active support 03/2024, security support in 05/29.
So it's not a "have to do it now".. it's a "want to be closer to core RHEL".... and if you want that.. they yes, sometimes you have to bite the bullet and either get another server to slide in or simply accept what is. That's not an "abnormal" situation. It's pretty much been that way since people have been using Linux... want another distro... you simply are going to have to burn out a new instance (unless you are running a VM environment on the dedicated server using SolusVM or ProxMox or similar, and if you are, then has some abilities that can be forced to move data from one VM into another).
That's why it's generally suggested to have your DATA (images, attachments, etc) stored separately from your OS setup (as an example with CM, having your /home mounted on a different partition), usually on a separate mount point for your sites compared to your base OS. If you shoved all your storage capacity into a central / mount point... that wasn't well thought out.

 

Personally.. If I need to run Rocky... I'll do 1 of two things.
First choice: Obtain another server setup (in my case a VPS, but the same can be done with dedicated equipment and frequently provides better "hardware" if you are realistic) and migrate over to it while the base site is in a "closed" status. This is my FIRST choice since I do run a smaller site and full backups aren't that hard.
Second choice: Simply wipe the base partition, reburn the OS (which I REALLY hope you mounted on a separate partion from your core site files) and mount my /home partition with all data intact, which would be more applicable to a larger install that the admin actually took some time to think ahead.

In other words.. if you have planned appropriately for your OS installation.. your "stance" is much ado about nothing, as I REALLY hope that in addition to your site home directory (in addition to it being mounted on a separate partition), you are backing up the necessary (in this case) CentMin config files. Lack of planning and knowledge of Linux abilities do not equate to a "weakness" in an ANY OS choice platform, and any migration to another OS... last I checked pretty much ALL the standard OS installs supported the same "format" for partitions. Lack of partition planning is NOT a weakness in the OS, but a basic failure upon the part of the admin for future planning for changes/upgrades. If you are guilty of this.. simply wear that hat proudly.. I obtained it a quite a few years ago. I (at the time) did not really understand why some OS choices defaulted to a separate /home partition.. guess what.. I quickly learned why. One thing I notice.. many "default" installs no longer push this... wonder why? Could it be "laziness" and "lack of knowledge" on what ultimately benefits the installers compared to the "it's easier to push everything into one partition" aspect? Keep your "important stuff" on a separate (and accepted format) partition.. then if you have to burn our your OS again.. you don't prang your important shit.
Granted. this means you actually have to backup your VALID database AND have a valid working knowledge of Linux (which I REALLY hope one has if they reach that point, but many suffer from weaknesses of knowledge about the OS).. but hopefully you are ALREADY doing that and have that base knowledge (but many don't, simply thinking that since they can burn the OS from their provider, they are "golden").. if not.. enjoy that 12 gauge shotgun blast to both feet.
And yes.. I'm rather blunt.. but after dealing with Linux in one form or factor since 1993... I've simply learned a few "tricks of the trade" over the years and cutting my teeth on BBS's running under DESQview and then OS/2....I'm not a neophyte in the arena. I have many weaknesses in it... but this is not one of them. And I simply have an issue with folks trying to push "their" view when in reality... the operating system allows SO much more. It is why I love (from "back in the day") both OS/2 and Linux (and ultimately Linux exceeded in many ways OS/2 other than in specific BBS software) over Windows/DOS/DESQview.

LEARN what your operating system offers you.. and then make use of it.
Somewhat sarcastic.. yep. But realistic.. again, yep. Sometimes we simply need to be slapped in the face to be forced to realize that there may be better ways to "implement" our solutions. The simple /home partition mount took me a few years to realize the benefit of having it separate from the OS.