From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Apr 20 20:04:01 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 562AF16A4CE for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:04:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from luzifer.incubus.de (incubus.de [80.237.207.83]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A547643D3F for ; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:04:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mkb@mkbuelow.net) Received: from drjekyll.mkbuelow.net (p3E9E259F.dip.t-dialin.net [62.158.37.159]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by luzifer.incubus.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C4F133FDF; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from drjekyll.mkbuelow.net (mkb@localhost.mkbuelow.net [127.0.0.1]) by drjekyll.mkbuelow.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3KK4BdA003074; Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:04:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from mkb@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net) Message-Id: <200504202004.j3KK4BdA003074@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> From: Matthias Buelow To: Bill Moran In-Reply-To: Message from Bill Moran <20050419120053.6ad17df1.wmoran@potentialtech.com> X-Mailer: MH-E 7.82; nmh 1.0.4; GNU Emacs 21.3.1 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:04:11 +0200 Sender: mkb@mkbuelow.net cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org cc: Matthias Buelow cc: jim-c@charter.net Subject: Re: Newbie Question About System Update X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:04:01 -0000 Bill Moran writes: >Fact is, trying to update a running system could result in silent failures. >The system can not replace programs that are in use, so there's always the >chance that something or other won't get updated (cron would be an excellent >example ... do you always shut cron off when you update? How about syslogd?) This is complete nonsense. >On a production system, you should have a serial terminal connected so you >can go to single-user mode remotely to do updates. There are fairly >inexpensive serial terminal boxes available from a number of vendors, and >if you have a spare machine available, you can always hook it up as a >serial terminal. I was talking about a colocation situation, where you most likely will never see the machine. Networked console boards are usually available but may not always be cost effective. I would agree that such a board may be a necessity in a high profile production server but if you are a small company, or use a machine privately, the extra cost often outweighs the gain. And a good colo hoster usually also has qualified staff. mkb.