Roger wrote:
I was hosting just over 1000 domains on FC5 and with very disastrous
consequences so i have moved away from FC5 and another friend of mine
with a lot more Linux experience tried unsuccessfully to run a
production server on FC5.
I think for experimenting with it and using it as a personal desktop
machine etc. etc. it runs very well, but not when your income depends on it.
It really depends on what you're trying to do. If you're using hardware
which is only recently supported in the kernel (SATA for example), then
FC5 gives you at least the option of running it (unlike older releases),
although there may still be bugs to be ironed out since the support is
still somewhat new.
On older hardware we've found FC to be rock solid.
The guys at Red Hat have a lot of work to do because FC5 is a load of
trash, i tried to upgrade my kernel and it did not work, so i guess some
of the nifty that FC5 comes with are a direct trade off for stabilty,
the only reason i opted for FC5 was because FC3 did not have SATA
drivers for my server so i hastily put together a small machine with
768MB memory and 40G hard drive and i am running Qmail with MySQL
integration there and so far the machine has not complained(I am
touching wood by the way!!!).
I can only disagree. We have 6 production servers running on FC5
(mostly Dell PowerEdge hardware) doing a variety of tasks (webservers,
database servers, subversion etc.) and apart from a couple of hardware
failures we've never had a problem with them. At least one started off
as a FC1 machine and has had every upgrade to FC applied. I lose about
a day every 6 months doing the upgrades, but I get a solid, free OS with
a very active community.
Sure, some people have problems, but in the majority of cases they'd be
likely to have the same problems with any distribution. People often
seem to attribute problems from upstream with the distribution in which
that problem manifests itself, which is a little unfair.
Simon.
