On 7/24/06, Chris Mauritz <chrism@imntv.com> wrote:
Jim Perrin wrote:
> On 7/24/06, Eduardo Grosclaude <eduardo.grosclaude@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I want to compare CentOS to Fedora and other distros on a
>> stability/network-dependance basis. Where should I look for some
>> published
>> statistics on updates? I mean probably megabytes per week (or whichever
>> units, of published updates over time), per distro.
>> Thank you in advance
>
> http://www.linux-magazine.com/issue/65/CentOS_4.2.pdf
>
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/migrate/whichlinux/ (CentOS is built from
> the freely available RHEL source rpms, so arguements for RHEL on this
> page also apply to CentOS, except for support and pricetag.)
I have a number of CentOS machines that have been up 24/7 in datacenter
environments for years and were only rebooted on occasion as a result of
security-related kernel upgrades (which would affect any linux distro).
I can't recall EVER having uptime or network-related issues on ANY live
CentOS server that wasn't the direct result of a hardware failure. It
just works...and works...and works. :) The key is to beat up on any
new hardware in a test environment first to make sure that you don't
have any incompatible hardware bits (which hasn't bitten me often).
Thank
you for your point, on which I wholly agree, but I was taking
"stability" as "a measure of velocity in change" of a system's
components-- here reflected in a shorter or longer life cycle for each
version. Please correct me if I am wrong, I may be misusing the word (I
am heading right to Wikipedia in a minute! :) ).
We all want CentOS as a server system because of its "stability" which
-at least for me- means few, controlled changes over an extended
lifetime. As to the network-dependance problem, I was thinking of the
"gee, I will really need a bandwidth here to cope with updates" feeling
suggested, for instance, by Fedora.
--
Eduardo Grosclaude
Universidad Nacional del Comahue
Neuquen, Argentina