[CentOS] Re: is CentOS stable enough ?

Feizhou feizhou at graffiti.net
Tue Jun 12 06:18:08 UTC 2007

Tom Diehl wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
>> Tom Diehl wrote:
>>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Feizhou wrote:
>>>>> FWIW, I use FC6 as my primary desktop.  It's quite stable.  I wouldn't
>>>>> use it for a server however -- too fast of a moving target.
>>>> Why not? Fedora as a server is not a problem...
>>> Except that it is supported for a max of approx 13 months. That means 
>>> that if
>>> you care at all about security updates, you are going to have to 
>>> upgrade the
>>> machine every year. That is not something I want to do with my servers.
>> Automated deployment.
> That still means you have to take it out of production to upgrade it.

SPOF server need not apply. Wait...you said servers. I say SO? Done 
properly, the downtime for the upgrade would be minimal. Just a reboot. 
Just the same amount of downtime you get when the thing crashes not if 
not less considering that you first have to discover that it is down.

>>> IMO, servers should be good for at least 4-5 years, maybe longer. 
>>> Depends on
>>> how long the hardware is useful and what kind of new features you 
>>> want/need.
>> Depends on the requirements.
>> The OS is basically a commodity item nowadays. Whatever that is stable 
>> and performs can be dropped in especially if the software stack is small.
> The OS is the easy part to get setup. Kickstart is a wonderful thing. It is
> the software stack that invariably takes the most time. Especially when 
> you consider that upgrading from one os version to the next will mean 
> upgrading
> things like apache/PHP. Try going from PHP 4 to PHP 5 without changing any
> of your php code. It can be simple or hard depending on how complex your 
> web
> sites are. Even more inportant try getting your customers to update their
> websites every 9-13 months. I would loose more customers than that could
> possibly be worth. I could go on and on with this type of thing. It just
> depends on our situation. If Fedora works for your servers have a good time
> but I am not in a situation where Fedora makes sense.

Ah, the wonderful perl/php dependency problem. Like I said, depends on 
the requirements. There was a time when my mail servers which had no 
perl/php dependency would be running the latest Fedora Core while 
systems belonging to others would be running RH7.3...long after security 
updates for RH7.3 were stopped.

>>>> Fedora as a desktop however...I don't know...the few times I have 
>>>> seen Fedora Core 5/6 desktops in action, Firefox froze, keyboard 
>>>> input would not work all of a sudden...
>>> Fedora for the desktop has been vaer stable for me and it gives me 
>>> the latest
>>> and greatest bells and whistles I want. The same frequent upgrade 
>>> cycle exists
>>> on the desktop but I am more tolerent of upgrading my desktop machine 
>>> once a
>>> year than upgrading servers. It is much easier to rebuild a desktop 
>>> than a production server.
>> Whether a production server is easier to rebuild than a desktop really 
>> depends on how you go about doing it.
> The real difference for me is my desktop serves 1 user, me. I can easially
> deal with things changing and maybe not working the exact way I want 
> them to,
> until I get things sorted out. That is not reasonable for my customers. If
> things change I loose sleep and money.

Like I said, it depends on how you go about doing it.

More information about the CentOS mailing list