On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 11:14, Dexter Ang wrote: > On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 00:01, shane c branch wrote: > > I currently have RH9 running on one of my servers at work. Now that the > > RH project has ended and Fedora has taken its place, I'm considering > > either upgrading or reinstalling that box with Fedora. > > > > However, I'm concerned if Fedora will be stable enough for the server. I > > would move to RHEL, but my dept isn't too keen on spending money at this > > point, which also has me considering going to Debian, as it has a > > reputation for stability. > > > > Any opinions appreciated. > > This would all depend on what you need. As for me, I am running Fedora > Core 1 on our server without an problems so far. It's running the > following services: > - DNS > - DHCP Server > - Samba File Server > - SMTP and POP3 > - MySQL, Apache, PHP for Groupware > - iptables for firewall and NAT. > Hardware it's running on is generic stuff. No name brand servers here. > With 3 IDE 40gb HDD configured as RAID5 array. We're cheap. But it runs > great. Of course, load is hardly ever maximized (maybe 50% at most). > Again, stability, I guess, would depend on what you use the server for. > Generally, Fedora is stable enough as a server. But I hear it's a pain > for SMP machines. > > dex I have been with RedHat since 6.1 and was in the same boat not too long ago regarding the choice between RHEL or FC. I actually have implemented both in different settings. At work, I use RHES v3 for: - Apache/MySQL - SSH - IPTABLES NAT/Firewall - SMTP/POP3S/IMAP For my clan, I have two systems running FC1: System 1 (P3 1.2GHz) ======================================= - Apache/MySQL - SMTP/POP3S/IMAP - IPTABLES NAT/Firewall - TeamSpeak System 2 (P4 2.8GHz HT w/ SMP kernel) ======================================= - Desert Combat game server (X2) - TeamSpeak - Ventrilo I also have been toying around with FC as a personal workstation. Overall I have to say I have been extremely satisfied with the performance and reliability of both RHEL and FC. I suppose the only possible down-side I see with FC is that there may not be an easy upgrade path from FC1 to FC2. I'm still waiting to see what happens. If there isn't a way to easily upgrade it means I have to take a couple of highly used servers offline for a time and install FC2 to get all the new goodies. Regardless, I think that the value far outweighs the inconvenience in my situation. My advice is simple. If you want a hands-off server implementation without having to mess around with a bunch of updates, then I would consider RHEL. Otherwise, I see no reason not to embrace FC. Both work exceptionally well, so you really can't go wrong in my opinion. -- |TF20|Shockwave http://www.clan-tf20.com/ ICQ# 57671167 #taskforce20 irc.gamesurge.net
