RH now exiting 1 more data center

[Jeff Vian]

Michael Gargiullo wrote:

>On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 17:02, Mark wrote:
>  
>
>>On February 22, 2004 04:22 pm, Res wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>we had 7.3 boxes running untill recent that NEVER missed a beat, never
>>>had to touch them,, like the RH9 boxes we have.... since fedora went on
>>>the 7.3 boxes, well, what a nightmare, daily interventions.
>>>I know of others who were running 7.3 samba servers, fedora destroyed it,
>>>they gave up and reinstalled 7.3 and backups from tape, they have told me
>>>they will not touch it again either.
>>>      
>>>
>>Critical systems need to be tested before major upgrades like that. Just 
>>upgrading to any new version of an OS can be problematic. This is nothing new 
>>with Fedora. You need to test things first. Especially if your system has to 
>>been working.
>>
>>Who knows, you configuration could triger a bug that hasn't been seen before. 
>>Anyone who rolls out major upgrades without testing first, deserves have 
>>problems.
>>
>>There were lots of problems with older upgrades of RedHat. RedHat 7.0 anyone?
>>
>>As for upgrading, the fedora legacy project is still supporting RedHat 7.3. So 
>>staying with RedHat 7.3 while you tested the new fedora setup only makes 
>>sense.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I know RH engineers work on this 
>>>project, but the QC crew sure as hell dont, if they did FC1 WOULD be as
>>>relaible and stable as previous RH's.
>>>      
>>>
>>Well I know for a fact that the same group guys we send RHEL bugs to respond 
>>to Fedora Bugs. Read the Fedora-test and Fedora-Devel list archives. 
>>Frequiently you will see names like Alan Cox or Mike Harris. 
>>
>>regards,
>>    
>>
>
>I find this thread very interesting. We run several multiproc boxes on
>FC1 without a hitch.  I will say, I don't think any of them are overly
>stressed, I like to over build when I have the chance.
>
>Tyan MB with AMD chips, and Dell 2650's dual Intel Xeon w
>hyperthreading.
>
>We run the FC1 SMP kernels...  Should I be looking for anything specific
>to go wrong?
>
>  
>
If it has not gone wrong yet, it probably won't.

>  
>