<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:52 AM, guru singh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:grsingh750@gmail.com">grsingh750@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Steven Ayre <<a href="mailto:steveayre@gmail.com">steveayre@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<br>
> Testing yourself is always a good idea before rolling out to a production<br>
> system. That'll show any obvious ones up that can be fixed quickly.<br>
<br>
</div>On a related note, After thorough testing, if a system is put in<br>
production. Would it be 'best practice' not to update it, if no config<br>
changes or new functionality is ever desired?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This depends greatly on your scenario. Personally, I think that anyone who puts FS into production (i.e. in a place where it helps one make money) should *ALWAYS* have a backup/sandbox/test system for handling updates. If you are in a mission-critical scenario then it probably means that once you get it working you don't touch it unless you absolutely have to. That's where your test system comes in to play. Ideally you have the exact same hardware on your test system that you do in production. Then your test system can double as a warm standby. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Just my $.02, but I think that commodity hardware being so cheap these days that there's no excuse for a for-profit venture using FS (or any other software, for that matter) not to have a test system for mission-critical servers.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-MC</div></div>