 | | | Value of subscription service... | Value of subscription service... 2005-03-31 - By Greg Swift
Back
Chris Adams wrote:
>Once upon a time, Greg Swift <greg@(protected)> said:
>
>
>>I'll address the "tested" updates later. Well, as much as a single OS
>>being supported for years and never having to re-image may be a great
>>thing for many others, as an ISP, I'm a touch more inclined to want to
>>re-install every year or so.
>>
>>
>
>I don't know about your ISP, but as an ISP, I'm a lot more inclined to
>want to leave a box alone for years. Why would I want to reload servers
>that are supposed to be up 24x7 every year? I've got about 100 servers
>here; I have better things to do than to move services and data off and
>reload each one every year.
>
>
Well.. my goal is to make each box as disposable as possible... and I am
almost at the point where every single box is. Its a lovely place to
be, because it does increase uptime. Don't get me wrong.. most of my
boxes have not been rebooted in longer than they have been in service
(we just made the cut to hosting everything internally almost a year
ago, after much fighting on my part). One of the reasons why I like
being able to reload a system is when packages catch up to my designs..
not that my designs are all that advanced, but I'm still waiting on some
things to catch up.
For instance, we based our backend on MySQL. We started off planning on
running in a clustered environment. My DB guy helped push mysql 4.x
ahead about a year back, and we got cluster running, and then decided we
didn't like thier cluster solution. But we had already gotten
everything running and installed w/ mysql4 on the systems. There was
also a few other packages that we had to build ourselves because the
powers that be at RH decided to leave them out of rhel3. Well now that
RHEL4 is out, If I decide to re-deploy a box, I do not have to go
through all the "additional" steps to implement a box, and this even
provides incentive to redeploy a box, just because it makes security
updates that much easier.
While we do not do "load" balancing per se (not a single box is running
at over 2-3% load except occasional spikes on outgoing mail), we do
configure our systems redundantly, so "redeploying" a box does not
adversely affect anything.
>We use Fedora on a few non-critical servers (systems that we can take
>down for a while if necessary for regular upgrades), but every public
>Linux server that is supposed to be available 24x7 runs RHEL.
>
>
And to be honest, that is how we are now.
I am curious though as to your size if you have about 100 servers...
I'm currently running at about 13 boxes (1 is a spare) and am scaled to
go many times our current 25k users.
--
Taroon-list mailing list
Taroon-list@(protected)
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/taroon-list
Earn $52 per hosting referral at Lunarpages.
|
|
|