[CentOS] tinydns/djbdns opinion poll
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.comThu Feb 12 19:16:03 UTC 2009
- Previous message: [CentOS] tinydns/djbdns opinion poll
- Next message: [CentOS] tinydns/djbdns opinion poll
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Bill Campbell wrote: > >>> That sounds like the kiss of death for any critical service. Can't it >>> figure out ahead of time that this is going to happen and let the >>> service keep running unchanged with a warning message about needing the >>> update instead? >> You're missing the point. If the service is already running, the >> changes won't take effect until you restart the service with the new >> binaries. And the whole patching exercise is what maintenance windows >> are for, anyway. Note that it's critical SERVICE, not critical SERVER. >> The former is more important than the latter, so ideally you should be >> able to take down the latter in order to upgrade one implementation of >> the former. > > I understand the distinction very well. In the time we have been using > this method, we have never taken down a service for any significant period > of time (the services are restarted on installation by the RPM SPEC files' > %pre, %post processing). > > Of course we don't do things that are likely to take a critical service > down without proper prior planning (often found out the hard way on our own > systems :-). If an update is likely to have an impact on operations, it is > scheduled during a maintenance window. In other words you'd dedicated sufficient human resources to undo whatever damage the package management system causes... -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
- Previous message: [CentOS] tinydns/djbdns opinion poll
- Next message: [CentOS] tinydns/djbdns opinion poll
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list