[CentOS-devel] drbd83 update + no kmod update = broken server

Johnny Hughes johnny at centos.org
Fri Sep 11 12:46:50 UTC 2009


On 09/10/2009 10:18 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM, Jerry Amundson <jamundso at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/10/09, Akemi Yagi <amyagi at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think that kmod-drbd82 could / should have been obsoleted by
>>> kmod-drbd83.  While they can coexist without any conflict, kmod-drbd82
>>> is no longer needed once drbd82 is updated to drbd83. So, uninstalling
>>> kmod-drbd82 would make sense.
>>
>> Umm, didn't I just read that you're part of the team which builds the
>> kmods, so can't you just "make it so"? :-)
> 
> I am part of the ELRepo team.
> 
> The drbd kmods are built by the CentOS devs.  So ... I am free to find
> fault with them.  :-D  :-D
> 
>> Or, back to my original question, should I create a bug report?
> 

Actually, the reason is that kmods are not built in the same way as
other packages, they are built buy a stand alone script, that I normally
do not like to modify specifically for individual packages.

Also, there is NO conflict or problem having both modules installed.

Also, ALSO :D, I published an article on how to upgrade DRBD here:

http://centosnow.blogspot.com/2009/08/drbd-packages-in-centos-4-and-centos-5.html

So, I do not agree that kmod needs to obsolete the older one.  I think
that having the older kmod there in case you need to boot into the older
kernel is not bad.

The only reason that you had a problem is that the OLD KMOD did not run.

I would NEVER, EVER update a DRBD cluster with yum.  You need to
manipulate heartbeat to keep your services on line while upgrading, etc.
etc.  I would (and do) want to have the old module installed until
everything is working on the new module.

Also, I am fairly sure the old module will work with older kernels while
the new module will work with newer kernels regardless of the drbd82 or
drbd83 installed (since in CentOS 5, the new module may have requires so
that it does not work on older kernels).



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20090911/c17045f0/attachment.bin 


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list