Have had RH8, with Apache 2.X running 500 virtual domains quite happily with SSL for nominated damains as well. The system handled on average over 2000 transactions per hr. Had to do a little tuning to RH8 though.
Not thrilled with RH but Client wanted a "Market" recognised Distro. cheers Michael -- Michael Sztachanski Snr. Tech. Engineer m: +61 410 547593 DATAPAC On Fri, 2003-08-29 at 16:47, John Clarke wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:26:48PM +1000, Scott Ragen wrote: > > > Is Redhat 9 even stable? I have found all (Well since I had been using it, > > from 6.0 - 8.0) major releases to be unstable, unreliable and buggy. > > That's not my experience. I've had a RH9.0 server running for the last > few months without any problems at all, and a RH7.0 server that's only > been shutdown for kernel upgrades or hardware mods since it was built a > couple of years ago. I had a 5.0 server that ran for a few years > wihtout problems too, finally being replaced with 7.3 late last year. > > I've also found my 5.0 and 7.0 workstations to have been very > reliable. I don't have a 9.0 workstation yet but I'd expect it to be > just as reliable as all the others. > > > Cheers, > > John > -- > whois [EMAIL PROTECTED] > GPG key id: 0xD59C360F > http://kirriwa.net/john/ > -- > SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ > More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug > > -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group - http://slug.org.au/ More Info: http://lists.slug.org.au/listinfo/slug
