On 10 Dec 2002, Neil Loffhagen wrote: > Be very interested in how it goes. I'm curious as to the upgrade path > in Linux (Redhat, SuSe or whatever). Coming from a Windows background, > where it was kind of as soon as the next version of Windows came out, > wait six months or so and then upgrade. It was a sort of done deal, > that in time you'd upgrade, sooner or later. With Linux I was getting > the impression, but this may be wrong, that if a Server is running fine, > then there is not so much point in upgrading from one version to > another, just need to make sure all the relevant updates are installed? > Or does it also reach a point when updates for an older version of, for > example, Redhat will stop being released? Would it be similar to > Windows now that NT 4.0 is being dropped, there is an expectation to > replace the OS, so far as MS are concerned with 2000 or .NET? As with all OSes, it all depends on what function the server has. If it has a very specific function with most other services removed, then one may be able to run it for a long time without reinstalling. I know that there is/was a tertiary mail server here (hmm.. not sendmail) at the school which, last I heard, was still running RH 5.x and had been up for more than 2 years. It was apparently stripped of all other functions. Again, as with all OSes, you need to decide what to patch and what not to patch on a server. If you keep a server running at the same version for a long time, then you better know really well the patch profile of the machine. Some patches are problematic, and you need to be very careful about applying them to servers. If you decide to skip some patches, then you better understand the consequences further down the road. A good example is 'rpm' .. I remember in the RH 6.x series that you needed to patch rpm in order to apply any other patches after a certain point (I'm always a bit careful about updating 'rpm' :-O especially on a server). Around the same time RH was finally able to offer openssl, and they then released (backported) various ssl-enabled RPMs to the community. There can be periods of 'activity' in the open-source world when you have many opportunities to patch :-) In this respect, Linux is a bit special. If a patch requires a reboot (ie. kernel), then you have an opportunity to bring it down and reinstall it. This again depends on what complexity resides on the server, and how much time you have to reconfigure it and put it back into production. I have an important web server that has been up for a year, and is my last 7.1 machine. I have a web/mail/misc server of lesser importance that is at RH 8.0. I also just installed a new (Legato) backup server as an 8.0 machine -- I'm starting from zero there, so I might as well start with the latest thing all the way around. But I would think twice about moving my NIS/NFS master to an x.0 release -- so it sits at RH 7.3. It just depends... So whether its Linux, or any other OS, in the end it just all depends on the circumstances. Of course, for the desktop, I pretty much believe in the bleeding edge :-) -- denice.deatrich @ epfl.ch, DSC / LTHC-LTHI, E.P.F.L. PH: +41 (21) 693 76 67 <*> This moment's fortune cookie: Eschew obfuscation. -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
