Fedora Makes a Terrible Server?

[John Summerfield]

David G. Mackay wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 20:51 +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
> 
>> There's losing and there's really losing. If Fedora won't boot, you have 
>> the services of neither until it's fixed.
>>
>> A little shore of Best Practice.
> 
> I don't think that anyone was talking about HA-Linux and redundant power

Nor was I.

> supplies here, John.  It's fairly trivial to set up a separate partition
> with a fallback OS.  I routinely do this with Fedora on one of my
> machines, and then rotate versions of Fedora between the two partitions
> as the releases become available.  If an update makes the newer version
> unbootable (extremely rare that you can't just use grub to boot the
> previous kernel), then there's always the old version to boot into.

Not Fedora exactly (it's the f9a), but yum has conspired with rpm 
against me to remove every working kernel. yum ignored how many kernels 
I wanted to keep, and (apparently) upgraded (as opposed to installed) 
the kernel.

It _could_ happen in Fedora, to anyone who had just one kernel (eg a new 
install).
> 
> Having a VM running a server in this environment may not be the absolute
> best practice, but it's certainly feasible.

That's not the point I was speaking about. Running a VM _under Fedora_ 
is. A VM under CentOS or RHEL is altogether different. RHEL/CentOS is 
less likely to break with a new update, and since it presents 
conservative "hardware" to the guest, Fedora is less likely to break too.



-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)