At Wed, 6 Apr 2011 17:08:55 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote: > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Robert Heller <heller at deepsoft.com> > > To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> > > Cc: centos at centos.org > > Sent: Wed, April 6, 2011 11:58:46 AM > > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Auto-updates -- Bad Idea? > > > > At Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:35:47 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> > >wrote: > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > As I've learned recently, I do not have any auto updates configured on my > > > > system. I see some posts on the web encouraging the use of "yum-cron", but > >I'd > > > > > like to know what people feel about the use of automatic updates. > > > > > > That is, for a server (non-desktop) system, automatic updates could break > > > > things or have other unforeseen consequences, and that could happen at the > >worst > > > > > of times, since the process runs regularly. > > > > > > On the other hand, for small businesses without highly trained sysadmins > >or > > > > > ones with enough time to baby their servers, missing critical updates to, > >say > > > > > openssl or some other mission-critical package could spell disaster. > > > > > > Is the only reasonable solution to schedule a "human cron" once a week to > >look > > > > > at needed updates? Ouch. > > > > I use the "human cron" option. It might make some sense to use > > "yum-cron", but the ideal way that would work best would be if the > > machines using "yum-cron" were tied to a local repo that contains only > > tested updates -- that is there would be developmental / test systems > > getting manually updated and then the updates would be tested. Once the > > updates have pased a QA process, they would be pushed to te internal / > > local repo, where they would be automagically picked up by "yum-cron". > > This covers both worlds: avoiding a automagical disaster AND automating > > updates across a pile of machines without a lot of manual labor. > > > > For small shop, just doing manual updates is probably best. Generally, > > basic CentOS updates are unlikely to cause problems, unless there is > > odd (non-standard) q hardware and/or odd software involved, so for many > > people a (blind) yum-cron might actually work just fine. It just > > depends on how much of a disaster a machine brought down by a update > > that happens to break something. > > Thanks for taking the time to answer. This seems to be the consensus of all > those who answered, and that was my hunch, so that it is. Too bad those posting > instructions for yum-cron on their blogs don't talk about these issues, but they > are likely desktop users I suppose. And/or small shops with very 'vanila' systems: no specialized hardware or software. And are not mission critical -- eg the occasional day of downtime is not a total disaster -- maybe some lost sales maybe. > > Thanks again > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 / heller at deepsoft.com Deepwoods Software -- http://www.deepsoft.com/ () ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments