Are we going too fast?
Quoted 5 lines · Alan Cox
If you want maximum stability you want to be running 2.2 or even 2.0. Newer less tested code is always less table. 2.4 wont be as stable as 2.2 for a year yet.
Couldn't have put that any better. On mission-critical systems, this is exactly what people do. Personally, my experience is from the big-iron world of S390 - if you're a bleeding-edge organisation, you'll be out there applying the latest PTFs, you'll be running the latest OS/390 etc. If you're conservative, you're at least 2, maybe 3 releases (in todays OS390 this means about 18-24 months) behind. If you're ultra-conservative, you'll wait for the point where you can no longer avoid an upgrade.
regards,
Per Jessen
regards,
Per Jessen, Zurich
http://www.enidan.com - home of the J1 serial console.
Windows 2001: "I'm sorry Dave ... I'm afraid I can't do that."
Quoted 6 lines · Per Jessen
Quoted 5 lines · Alan Cox
If you want maximum stability you want to be running 2.2 or even 2.0. Newer less tested code is always less table. 2.4 wont be as stable as 2.2 for a year yet.
Quoted 7 lines
Couldn't have put that any better. On mission-critical systems, this is exactly what people do. Personally, my experience is from the big-iron world of S390 - if you're a bleeding-edge organisation, you'll be out there applying the latest PTFs, you'll be running the latest OS/390 etc. If you're conservative, you're at least 2, maybe 3 releases (in todays OS390 this means about 18-24 months) behind. If you're ultra-conservative, you'll wait for the point where you can no longer avoid an upgrade.
We've only just now moved from 2.0.36 to 2.2.18, and cautiously at that. We've started to run into applications that won't run on the older kernel/lib combinatons that we need.
_
/ \ / [email protected]
/ \ \ /
/ \_/Quoted 7 lines · Per Jessen
Quoted 6 lines · Alan Cox
If you want maximum stability you want to be running 2.2 or even 2.0. Newer less tested code is always less table. 2.4 wont be as stable as 2.2 for a year yet.
Quoted 6 lines
Couldn't have put that any better. On mission-critical systems, this is
exactly what people do. Personally, my experience is from the big-iron
world of S390 - if you're a bleeding-edge organisation, you'll be out
there applying the latest PTFs, you'll be running the latest OS/390 etc. If you're conservative, you're at least 2, maybe 3 releases (in todays OS390 this means about 18-24 months) behind. If you're ultra-conservative, you'll wait for the point where you can no longer avoid an upgrade.
Unfortunately, this methodology also introduces another important factor. You are the most likely target for exploits and vulnerabilities. As is ever so strongly evidenced by the great numbers of people being exploited because the version of software they have is outdated.
It's a gross measure of risks; where does the risk come from, how can it affect you, and what can you do about it.
Some of the most common questions asked on support areas is (take IIS for example) "My server is being exploited, how can I stop it?" and the most common answer to that is "Upgrade and install all necessary patches."
Save for the rare occasion of issue, I run a few different server farms and they all perform very well and are all rock solid stable. I should also note that they are all 2.4 kernels. For servers I seem to have really good success stories, for my workstation I tend to have issues which is fairly natural, my workstation has numerous accessory cards and features.
To be honest, save for either power outtage or kernel upgrade, I rarely have to deal with reboots. I tend to keep my servers within a few releases of the current code. Due to this policy I rarely have exploit and vulnerability issues. One particular server (which has a VIA chipset...is it jinxed? :) has problems now and then but they get fixed.
David