Question about updates

NoOp glgxg at
Sat Aug 27 00:31:52 UTC 2011

On 08/26/2011 05:04 PM, Avi Greenbury wrote:
> 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.

To each there own. For the OP:

More information about the ubuntu-users mailing list