Date: Tue, 7 Dec 1999 21:05:38 -0800 From: "Sameer R. Manek" <manek@quadrunner.com> To: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: is -STABLE really stable? Message-ID: <NDBBKDINCKINCMKCHGCIGECMCEAA.manek@quadrunner.com> In-Reply-To: <199912080107.SAA23073@freeway.dcfinc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG > [mailto:owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Chad R. Larson > Sent: Tuesday, December 07, 1999 5:07 PM=20 >=20 > As I recall, Steve O'Hara-Smith wrote: > > This is an interesting topic in it's own right. There is a fairly > > large body of opinion that the right way to treat a production = system > > is never to upgrade it at all, rather to periodically replace it = with > > a well tested replacement using later software. >=20 > The best way, if you can afford the time and hardware. All it really needs is 1 spare box. Assuming upgrades are performed = every release, that's only 3 upgrades a year. And the cost of the extra = hardware will be about $100/month for a lease. Most business can afford = the hardware, it's the labor that's expensive. Even then having a spare = system is justifable. The cost of downtime for a failed upgrade can be expensive compared to = the tested replacement machine path. Granted smaller companies, = especially one and two employee companies might not be able to afford = the extra hardware, but they have a different business model. Sameer To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NDBBKDINCKINCMKCHGCIGECMCEAA.manek>