RH 9 to FC1/FC2 and some questions

[Ben Brown]

In reading what some others have posted in this thread, I am wondering
if they would consider my update methods a bit "on the edge"... but I
simply use yum to update the servers. I never test updates first,
honestly... I haven't ever had a problem that caused me to question the
quality of the updates.

I should probably point out that the only deviation I take from the
"standard" FC1 is rolling my own kernels on some of my production
servers. The main reason for this is that several of the servers I
manage have Broadcom NICs, which require drivers from the manufacturer
(to allow failover, as they are two-port NICs designed to prevent an
outage in the event of a switch or NIC port failure). Any time a new
errata kernel was released, I'd have to truck it down to the collocation
facility, reboot, recompile the drivers, and reboot again. :) That got
old in a hurry, so I just roll my own kernels now.

On Sun, 2004-06-13 at 04:13, Philippe wrote:
> Your testimonial is usefull, as many RH9 users feel the wind to choose
> now to jump on FC1 or FC2, or Whitebox, and so on. My question is not
> off topic, and is related to this thread.
> Do you actually update your production server, as frequently as the
> updates are provided, or you just keep a stable "original" version of
> FC1, and thoroughly test every update which can affect your production
> servers. My main concern is not really installing FC1 or FC2, but the
> trust I can have into FC updates (no offense to the community working on
> it) ;-)
> 
> Philippe
> 
> -- 
> Philippe, Chiangmai, Thailand
-- 
--------
Ben Brown
xthor at xthorsworld.com
http://www.xthorsworld.com/