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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.xthorsworld.com/
