On 07/01/2010 18:04, Paul Kyzivat wrote:
> (We had previously been using patch-220.127.116.11-vs2.01.diff. When we
> migrated to patch-18.104.22.168-vs22.214.171.124.diff some of our guests
> encountered incompatibilities that we didn't discover until after the
> fact. That is making people gun shy.
Opinions are ten a penny, so just to offer one...
Given that one of the major benefits I find from virtualisation is that
you can clone the image very easily and test it elsewhere. Would this
not be a viable strategy with regards to upgrading no matter what you go
I concur with Herbert though that it's always worth striving to stay as
current as possible in the Linux world. For better or for worse all the
bug fixing and features tend to follow HEAD and backports tend to
struggle a bit (in general)...
I personally didn't notice much difference upgrading from exactly your
kernel to something around the 2.6.29 mark with the newer patch line.
However, you should also not take my experience too seriously since I
barely stress the vserver stuff and have only very simple needs...
Perhaps others will offer you some better notes on compatibility.
I think this upgrade should be workable for you, but I guess the point
is to get some spare hardware and get some testing in ahead of changing
out the live machine? (I think someone previously asked about running
vserver under vmware/kvm/xen or similar...)
Received on Mon Jan 11 15:03:42 2010