> Subject: Re: Fedora on the server > From: Brian Collins <listbc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:59:09 -0500 > Reply-To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > > I'm still recommending (and using) RHL7.3. > > > > I know RH will stop supporting it by the end of this year, but > > Fedora-Legacy appears to be ready to step in. > > > > I just like the maturity of RHL7.3. > > I wholeheartedly agree with that. My most stable systems, now that I > think about it, run 7.3. My biggest beef with 8 & 9 has been the issue > of RPM hanging occasionally, plus their complete reworking of the static > routes in the /etc/sysconfig structure. Just so the nay-sayers aren't the only voice, we've had RH9 on servers that get about 1 million PHP+Postgresql page views every day. We've had no problems since deployment in May. We switched to RH9 because that configuration gives us new performance gains by serving the images for those pages from a threaded http server on the same box. And they do run nearly the same kernel now: kernel-smp-2.4.20-20.7.i686.rpm kernel-smp-2.4.20-20.9.i686.rpm So while the common wisdom is that 7.3 is more mature, I have to wonder why that would be. I also notice that mirror.hiwaay.net use fedora, I have to believe that server sees more than just a little traffic. My advice would be to look at the features. if you do not need features from RH9, 7.3 might be slightly more stable. But if you have a valid business use for features in RH9, I wouldn't fear using it. And with a limited time for deployment, I have no issues yet on my 3 Fedora boxes either, so I would consider it for a fresh server install. If nothing else, the kernel exec-shield makes one argument for its use in an exposed environment. -- Karl DeBisschop <kdebisschop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
