Re: workstation vs server

Biology itself is about 4-6 servers and 30? or so workstations.

I treat them all the same now - we basically have "server" configs and
"workstation" configs, and frankly if most/all of the workstations are
broken, its just as big a hassle if a server breaks.

There's a lot of resistance to upgrading servers - I'm about to add
several packages to the exclude lists on my servers, as I want to do
those particular packages by hand myself.

So, every site is different, but up2date/(current|RHN) definately does
work for servers.



On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 13:56, Paul Nasrat wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 10:14:48AM -0800, Patrick Devine wrote:
> 
> > who on the list is using Current to upgrade servers, and what is your 
> > ratio of servers/workstations that you update?
> 
> I use it exclusively for servers.  Not that many, but it's been more in
> the past.
> 
> I guess the argument is that debian ppl, will happily use apt-get on
> servers, I guess Mandrake ppl will use urpmi, and RH based solutions
> up2date/(rhn|current) is a valid solution.
> 
> I guess scheduling and limiting what gets upgraded is just policy, and
> other tools exist for ensuring that the servers have the right policy
> (cfengine,arusha,lcfg and Hunter's gromit).
> 
> Paul
> _______________________________________________
> Current-server mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/current-server
> 
> 
-- 
Hunter Matthews                          Unix / Network Administrator
Office: BioScience 145/244               Duke Univ. Biology Department
Key: F0F88438 / FFB5 34C0 B350 99A4 BB02  9779 A5DB 8B09 F0F8 8438
Never take candy from strangers. Especially on the internet.