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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Z1aaaaaaa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- 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:-)
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
