stability of fedora for server application?

[Shockwave]

On Sat, 2004-03-13 at 11:14, Dexter Ang wrote:
> On Sun, 2004-03-14 at 00:01, shane c branch wrote:
> > I currently have RH9 running on one of my servers at work. Now that the 
> > RH project has ended and Fedora has taken its place, I'm considering 
> > either upgrading or reinstalling that box with Fedora.
> > 
> > However, I'm concerned if Fedora will be stable enough for the server. I 
> > would move to RHEL, but my dept isn't too keen on spending money at this 
> >   point, which also has me considering going to Debian, as it has a 
> > reputation for stability.
> > 
> > Any opinions appreciated.
> 
> This would all depend on what you need. As for me, I am running Fedora
> Core 1 on our server without an problems so far. It's running the
> following services:
> - DNS
> - DHCP Server
> - Samba File Server
> - SMTP and POP3
> - MySQL, Apache, PHP for Groupware
> - iptables for firewall and NAT.
> Hardware it's running on is generic stuff. No name brand servers here.
> With 3 IDE 40gb HDD configured as RAID5 array. We're cheap. But it runs
> great. Of course, load is hardly ever maximized (maybe 50% at most).
> Again, stability, I guess, would depend on what you use the server for.
> Generally, Fedora is stable enough as a server. But I hear it's a pain
> for SMP machines.
> 
> dex

I have been with RedHat since 6.1 and was in the same boat not too long
ago regarding the choice between RHEL or FC.  I actually have
implemented both in different settings.

At work, I use RHES v3 for:
- Apache/MySQL
- SSH
- IPTABLES NAT/Firewall
- SMTP/POP3S/IMAP

For my clan, I have two systems running FC1:

System 1 (P3 1.2GHz)
=======================================
- Apache/MySQL
- SMTP/POP3S/IMAP
- IPTABLES NAT/Firewall
- TeamSpeak

System 2 (P4 2.8GHz HT w/ SMP kernel)
=======================================
- Desert Combat game server (X2)
- TeamSpeak
- Ventrilo

I also have been toying around with FC as a personal workstation. 
Overall I have to say I have been extremely satisfied with the
performance and reliability of both RHEL and FC.  I suppose the only
possible down-side I see with FC is that there may not be an easy
upgrade path from FC1 to FC2.  I'm still waiting to see what happens. 
If there isn't a way to easily upgrade it means I have to take a couple
of highly used servers offline for a time and install FC2 to get all the
new goodies.  Regardless, I think that the value far outweighs the
inconvenience in my situation.

My advice is simple.  If you want a hands-off server implementation
without having to mess around with a bunch of updates, then I would
consider RHEL.  Otherwise, I see no reason not to embrace FC.  Both work
exceptionally well, so you really can't go wrong in my opinion.


-- 

|TF20|Shockwave
http://www.clan-tf20.com/
ICQ# 57671167
#taskforce20  irc.gamesurge.net