Milambar how else are they going to dist-upgrade?
ssh is the primary means to manage unix servers. Its a stable protocol but obviously relies on a network connection to hold up. The OP I uggest you use 'screen' tho, that way if you lose your ssh connection the session stays up in screen and you can reattach to it.
Seems the lame timeouts in the superhub still exist then. Another workaround is to force the sshd server to send frequent keepalive packets.
---------- Post added at 16:02 ---------- Previous post was at 15:58 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milambar
Usually, but not garunteed. Ive had sshd fall over during an upgrade process. Not just disconnect, but completely fall over, now that DOES make a mess (and cost a service ticket for them to go and hard reboot the box). That wasn't exactly a network issue, but did highlight to me how risky dist-upgrade over ssh actually was. We invested in a KVM-over-ip for that now. Yes, an expensive solution, but less expensive than downtime and service tickets.
Running it inside screen is a good option if your network tends to disconnect however.
|
In 10 years or so of managing servers I honestly cannot remember a time of sshd just falling over. I have had it crash due to mistakes have made during work but not just randomly fallover. Also when ssh crashes it doesnt take the existing ssh connections down, it just stops new ones been made.
kvm is great but in many cases it cant be justified for the 24/7 cost. I have a 24/7 kvm on some servers, usually ones with built in ilo and colo'd rather than rented, and a few 'expensive' rented servers, but pretty much all low cost rented ones I just ask for a kvm when its needed (extremely rare). The dc's I use will typically provide a kvm within 10-20 minutes. Hard rebooting the server is overkill for a downed ssh. But if you do hard reboot I think its very rare now days to not have a remote reboot port (APC), as even cheap servers usually get supplied with one now, as it saves the dc costs on tech support.