On Monday 23 February 2015 15:45:26 Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andrew R Paterson > > <andy.paterson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > But maybe the problem is that not many people install/reinstall/fedup > > often > > enough to get familiar with it. > > Nor should they. Therein lies a huge reason for why I think the scope > is just too extreme when they either have to become familiar with its > idiosyncrasies, or read a bunch of documentation. > > fedup should get better, although I don't know the time frame. One of > the ideas floated is to make major upgrades show up in Gnome-Software > just like offline updates do which already leverages systemd. > > And eventually I'd like to see the default installations be a handful > of use cases but under neath it all it's a stateless installation that > permits easy resets, and atomic updates. > > > So I simply make sure I avoid the problem. > > The thought of risking "mucking it up" after being bitten just once (maybe > > in the distant past) still makes me do an "Upgrade" the way I do by a > > reinstall but requiring my own /home and other "partitions". Because > > these are on separate disks these filesystems are kept securely offline > > till the install (upgrade) is complete - then I manually add them - > > anyone else wanting to be really sure they have control of an "upgrade" > > would be sensible in doing the same thing! > > No they should test this and try to break it and if they can break it > file a bug so that we can all trust the installer, rather than > suggesting ways to avoid making things better and more trustworthy. > > > I am sure the existing anaconda will allow me to do this - but it > > irritates me that some people think it shouldn't - and like I say I don't > > upgrade often enough to be confident and sure. > > I've done dozens of /home reuse. It even includes /home on a Btrfs > subvolume, which is on a volume that / is also going to be created > which normally mandates a reformat which might suggest /home gets > obliterated, but the installer instead creates a new subvolume for / > instead of reformatting, and reuses the existing /home. > > > So I'm afraid I want to preserve my filesystems (and their partitioning) > > and NO - I don't have backups! - and you wont persuade me to take any > > either - I would spend all day doing backups - and please don't give me > > another lecture on the subject - I have set up bacula on a large network > > blah! > > You hate your data. You want it gone. You're just unwilling to do it > directly yourself, so instead you're being passive aggressive with it. > > > and done script > > systems using dump/restore and found that its a full time job which > > introduces new risks that pretty well counter the benefits - Unless you > > are talking about enterprise systems! > > OK add the lack of a really good backup and restore to the list of > consequences everyone suffers from, by everyone demanding their > obscure layout be supported. These arbitrary layouts, rather than > standardization, is impossible to restore correctly without human > intervention or very expensive (development knowledge and time and > testing) backup restore software. > > > Neurotic I might be, but that's the way I do an "upgrade" because I don't > > trust the installer - yum upgrade - fedup or whatever its next incarnation > > might be! > > Well as yet not neurotic enough if you aren't doing backups, yet so > worried about your /home data you think it's going to be the installer > that nukes it. Hang on there Chris, (new thread really) why do you think using a mirror as a backup is a bad idea? After all its a bit like a database checkpoint. What is the benefit of a full backup against simply taking a mirror offline and replacing it with a new mirror and resyncing - without I might add taking my system down? As opposed to taking your box offline, and doing a level 0 backup to another disk - you end up with a serial backup which must be parsed - I end up with a filesystem that I can mount? To me this is one of the benefits of mirroring - I can mount one of my old detached mirrors somewhere else and get at my old data. That's aside from the lower risk of losing the data in the first place. I don't particularily need to archive data - just preserve it. I think you will find this idea is becoming more common these days. So please give some good reasons for archive (backup) better than checkpoint (detached mirror)?? Andy -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
