Question about updates

[Avi Greenbury]

NoOp wrote:

> Personally I'd advise against that. IMO it's *always* better to be
> able to view upgrades that are about to be installed first.

In an ideal world, with time and the like, yes, it's always good to be
able to sit there and watch things potentially break.
On the other hand, I'm only aware of us having had one problem through
using unattended-upgrades, where MySQL didn't restart, which is a
definite win compared to nobody ever getting round to upgrading the
server. 

You know when u-a is going to run, and it emails you (or whoever) when
it's finished; I don't imagine u-a breaking something would take any
longer to fix than an attended upgrade breaking it. At a maximum, I
suppose, the time it takes nagios to prod someone and them to login.

This is almost exclusively Debian, but I like to think Ubuntu's about
as careful with server packages, even if they're not between releases...

> Further, unless something like /etc/apt/apt.conf has been created to
> limit the bandwidth of the upgrades, you may find that your entire
> bandwidth is sucked up during the unattended upgrade. During that
> period you, your users, your machine, and anyone else on that
> download link may slow to a crawl during the upgrades.

Ah, yes. Well, since u-a runs weekly there's rarely much to pull down
at all, and we've a local apt-mirror which helps with the bandwidth.

-- 
Avi