Fedora on servers

[Bill Gradwohl]

Paul Flanders wrote:

>I have many RH9 servers running and need to upgrade, i have been putting
>in FC1 servers as 'i feel' it seems bit safer knowing that FC1 was very
>stable has lots of updates and runs well on DELL servers and after the
>hassle with FC2 (ended up going back to FC1) and FC3 (can not get samba
>working fully 'dont ask!') I think at the moment ill stick to RH9 and
>FC1. The "legacy" 15-18 month business is a bit worrying especially if
>the FC versions cycle out very quickly. I may look at RH Enterprise but
>there is a cost to it. I manage over 50 RH servers and i really dont
>like the idea of upgrading them all to often especially when so much
>seems to break between versions.
>  
>
We've got lots of FC2 servers running in production at client sites, and 
just recently did an FC3 with seventeen 400Gig (Data) and two 40GIG 
(O/S) drives for a samba box supporting about 80 engineering users. This 
box uses disk as a backup resource - no tape drive (I hate tape).

We use nothing but ASUS mainboards and 3WARE controllers, and just don't 
have the problems some folks seem to have with name brand boxes and SCSI 
controllers. We also prefer a normal BIOS that we can work with, as 
opposed to the customized BIOS setups from the likes of DELL, HP, IBM, 
etc. We like quality clone hardware as opposed to something with a 
recognizable name on it, and our clients appreciate the fact that they 
run for years without a hickup.

BTW - we aren't in the hardware business. We spec the parts for our 
clients and they can source them from whereever they want. We make $0 
from hardware.

I wouldn't hesitate putting an FC3 box into production as long as its on 
good (clone) hardware. :-)

-- 
Bill Gradwohl
bill at ycc.com
http://www.ycc.com
spamSTOMPER Protected email