[CentOS] Re: Safety
centos at silverservers.com
Mon Mar 20 19:50:22 UTC 2006
I do remote YUM updates on my servers frequently. I've only had a few
problems over time, most of which have little or nothing to do with the
update itself. IE, a hardware problem being discovered due to a reboot,
or the reboot taking far longer than expected due to the machine having
been up for around a year and an FSCK was forced.
Overall, CentOS w/YUM seems pretty rock solid.
Scott Silva wrote:
> Sam Drinkard spake the following on 3/20/2006 7:39 AM:
>> My server has not yet been updated with all the goodies and is still a
>> stock 4.2 installation. What is the consensus about remote updating?
>> Would it be better if I were to physically be there and do it or are
>> things stable enough that I could do it remotely and then reboot. It's
>> kind of a PITA to have to go downtown to the C0-LO site, but can be done.
> A remote update works 99.99% of the time, but nothing is "infallible". You can
> do the remote update, and run downtown only if it fails. You only need a
> reboot if you get a new kernel, which you will probably get. The biggest
> gotcha is if you are running something non-standard that an update might hose.
> But if that is the case, you can always remotely fix it or try to go back.
> The risk of running without the updates can offset the risk of updating most
> of the time.
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the CentOS