I agree with you completely, Bob. The idea of keeping one "master
server" to push out updates to many is extremely useful when you are
maintaining a large number of similar systems. It is much less
work-intensive to maintain several hundred systems if they are running
on exactly the same configuration, kernel, etc. The only caveat is that
you must be extremely careful with any changes you make to the master,
and make certain that any changes that you make to your master system
are pushed out to all of the "leaf" systems. If not, then you get some
updates here and there on various systems and you may as well be running
different software on all of the machines. CVS is definately the way to
go, as it helps you to be disciplined about distribution. Just make sure
that the master server that is cvsuping is thoroughly tested before you
push things out, or you're heading for trouble very quickly :)
Robert wrote:
> There may be some value in the multiple servers case, of running one as a
> cvs server, and updating all the others off that one. Then all your servers
> are reflections of the one that is cvsupping the -> remote-cvs-server
>
> just a thought.
>
> Bob
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Brian D. Woodruff wrote:
>>
>>> At 10:35 PM 4/4/01 -0400, you wrote:
>>>
On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 09:32:39PM -0500, Brian D. Woodruff wrote:
> Here are my questions:
>
> 1.) is there a way to specify 4.2-STABLE, which is what I
>> have been using?
>>
>>> can anyone tell me how to get the STABLE version I want?
>>>
>>> I would rather be consistent across my servers than have some be one
>>> release past the others.
>>
>> If you're using CVS to get RELENG_4 at different points in time, even if
>> they're all 4.2-STABLE, your servers will NOT be consistent anyway. The
>> -STABLE branch is a stream, in constant development. If you update your
>> sources via CVS to build one server, then the next day update sources
>> again to build another server, the two servers will be different. This is
>> the essence of -STABLE, even though it seems to contradict the meaning of
>> the word "stable". :-)
>>
>> If you require absolute consistency across servers, you need to either
>> update all servers from the very same source, or specify an exact CVS tag
>> to get the same sources for all servers.
>>
>> And if it doesn't bother you that your servers are on different points of
>> 4.2-STABLE, then 4.3-RC is just another point a little farther down the
>> development stream. I'd actually consider the -RC to be safer bet than
>> the average -STABLE.
>>
>> Ken
>>
>>
>> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
>>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
