Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:09:06 -0000 From: "Paul Robinson" <p.robinson@mmu.ac.uk> To: "'Dirk Meyer'" <dirk.meyer@dinoex.sub.org>, <freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org> Subject: RE: uptime 4.0 Message-ID: <002b01c3b99e$a1dc3340$6c01a8c0@MITERDOMAIN> In-Reply-To: <s35eNvogEu@dmeyer.dinoex.sub.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dirk Meyer wrote: > Local system status: > 1:59AM up 1212 days, 17:50, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 Now, please don't take this the wrong way Dirk, but I need to use you to make a point here. 1. Uptimes of 1,200 days says wonderful things about FreeBSD. 2. Uptimes of 1,200 days says terrible things about the administrators of those boxes. You were attempting to make point 1, and yes, FreeBSD is very stable and that's all very impressive. However, point 2 needs some consideration. There are good reasons to be keeping track of -STABLE and even more reasons to be keeping track of -RELEASE. You can't have been doing either of those for the last 4 years. That, in my opinion, leaves you vulnerable in a few ways. Of course, the real answer here is to work on a way of allowing for an "upgrade" to happen without re-booting the machine, thereby getting kerenel patching without losing service or uptime. However, until we get to that point, consider patching at least once a quarter to a recent -RELEASE or even better, -STABLE cvsup, and go from there.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?002b01c3b99e$a1dc3340$6c01a8c0>