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>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> -----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 > > 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. > > 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 messagehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?NDBBKDINCKINCMKCHGCIGECMCEAA.manek>