This is really good advice and what I'm following for all systems which need to be stable. If there aren't any security issues, I either wait a few months or keep one or two versions behind.
This is really good advice and what I'm following for all systems which need to be stable. If there aren't any security issues, I either wait a few months or keep one or two versions behind.
Windows is a well-known example; people used to wait for a service pack or two before upgrading.
I mean evergreen releases make sense imo, as the overhead of maintaining older versions for a long time is huge, but you need to have canary releases, monitoring, and gradual rollout plans; for something like Windows, this should be done with a lot of care. Even a 1% release rate will affect hundreds of thousands if not millions of systems.
In the wild for example in Forrest, old boars give safety squeaks to send the younglings ahead into a clearing they do not trust. The equivalent to that- would be to write a tech-blog entry that hypes up a technology that is not yet production ready.
Yeah, this is generally a good practice. The silver lining is that our suffering helped uncover the underlying issue faster. :)
This isn’t part of the blog post, but we also considered getting the servers and keeping them idle, without actual customer workload, for about a month in the future. This would be more expensive, but it could help identify potential issues without impacting our users. In our case, the crashes started three weeks after we deployed our first AX162 server, so we need at least a month (or maybe even longer) as a buffer period.
Did you actually uncover the true root cause? Or did they finally uncap the power consumption without telling you, just as they neither confirmed nor denied having limited it?
I don't believe they simply lifted a power cap (if there was one in the first place). I genuinely think the fix came after the motherboard replacements. We had 2 batches of motherboard replacements and after that, the issue disappeared.
If someone from Hetzner is here, maybe they can give extra information.
[1] https://status.hetzner.com/incident/7fae9cca-b38c-4154-8a27-...
On the other hand, dmidecode output in the article shows:
Manufacturer: Dell Inc. Product Name: 0H3K7P
> The inspection system as currently used by the Skunk Works, which has been approved by both the Air Force and the Navy, meets the intent of existing military requirements and should be used on new projects. Push more basic inspection responsibility back to the subcontractors and vendors. Don't duplicate so much inspection.
But this will be the only and last time Ubicloud does not burn in a new model, or even tranches of purchases (I also work there...and am a founder).