seth vidal wrote:
theoretically one could update a kernel without technically
rebooting... but at what point are you just being silly to just say
you have the longest uptime (and is it uptime if you have dropped all
your services to do your update?)
Think remote access, reboot is a dangerous operation. Anyway, if a
reboot buys you nothing you don't reboot, do you? :-)
I reboot religiously. What does 5110 days of uptime buy me anyway? Not
even a cup of coffee.
At my last job we put a policy in place where no system would have a
greater than 150 day update, unless it had extenuating circumstances.
What I discovered in general was this:
- systems that haven't been rebooted in a while sometimes gather cruft
that has not been properly laced into the startup. so it doesn't come up
on its own. Rebooting frequently ensures that people remember to do that
- any system that "MUST BE UP ALL THE TIME" should be redundant. If it
is not redundant and it is that important then that service is a pretty
precarious position.
- reboots ferret out problems in hardware that you don't always see
until a powercycle. Like a disk that will just keep on spinning provided
it is never stopped.
I agree with religiously rebooting boxes.
Having had a machine up for 4+ years until I had to move it and was too
lazy to drag along a UPS on one of its dual power supplies, I have to
disagree. It is nice to have services like dhcp, dns, email, etc.
running all the time and rebooting just covers up problems like memory
leaks that should be fixed instead of worked around. If something isn't
reliable, why do you want to use it at all?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
