We run unstable on our production servers. That means we must be very vigilant in making sure no one else has had a problem. We download the updates, and install them a day or two later after other people have tested it and made sure it doesn't totally destroy the box. The reason we run unstable is because quite a few times we've needed new software, and it just wasn't in stable.
Anyway, thats our take on it... and its never failed us so far. Takes quite a bit of effort though... so watch out. Sincerely, Jason Lim ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin WHEELER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Glenn Hocking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <debian-isp@lists.debian.org> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 2:58 AM Subject: Re: stable vs testing > On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Glenn Hocking wrote: > > > My question is what other experiences have others have running > > testing/unstable in a live environment with regards to both security and > > stability. > > unstable is very much a "trust this and die" environment. > NOT recommended for a critically live installation. > > I run testing in a live environment -- BUT: > I have *two* copies of the system software on the same machine (on > different physical disks); one of which is always two-three days behind > the other in terms of update/upgrade. > > So if tonight's upgrade makes something go bang, I can usually recover > as soon as I notice. (Case in point: libexpat went agley on me a couple > of weeks ago, but fortunately I was able to copy over a library file > from one system to another to sort it.) > > HTH > > msw > -- > - Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality - > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > pub 1024D/01269BEB 2001-09-29 Martin Wheeler (personal key) > Key fingerprint = 6CAD BFFB DB11 653E B1B7 C62B AC93 0ED8 0126 9BEB > > > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.zentek-international.com/ >
