| 1 |
On 2014-02-20 7:04 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2014-02-19 7:53 PM, Facundo Curti <facu.curti@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> This is true, but gentoo is a little unstable to use on production. The |
| 4 |
>> system must be on 365 days/year. ¿and when you need to update the |
| 5 |
>> system? This will use all the processor and the system will be |
| 6 |
>> overloaded. This means users can't use the system when this is |
| 7 |
>> updating... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> That is such total FUD I just can't even say anything else about it |
| 10 |
> without using some unsavory words. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I had an old underpowered server (only 2GB of RAM) that supported about |
| 13 |
> 100 users using IMAP to access their huge maildir mailstores (some users |
| 14 |
> have 20+GB of mail). |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I kept the thing updated on a regular basis, and the only time it ever |
| 17 |
> went down was to reboot after a kernel upgrade. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
And I neglected a main factor - this server was running and serving this |
| 20 |
many users and being updated simultaneously like this for about 9 YEARS. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I only just recently (in the last couple of months) replaced it with a |
| 23 |
shiny new gentoo VM running on my shiny new vmWare host, and I only did |
| 24 |
that because I wanted to enable dovecots on disk indexes but couldn't do |
| 25 |
that without adding more RAM and more disk space to the old box, and |
| 26 |
since I had a shiny new vmWare host, it only made sense to ditch the old |
| 27 |
box. |
Archives