On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Neal Becker <ndbecker2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > drago01 wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Matthew Miller >> <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:06:45PM +0200, drago01 wrote: >>>> > That's not the most descriptiony of all descriptions ever, but if the name >>>> > is any indication, it is just a thing which keeps the cache up to date. >>>> > yum-cron can actually apply updates [....] >>>> That sounds dangerous ... updates are not really atomic (i.e not at >>>> all) doing them silently in the background is a very bad idea. >>> >>> Yet, it works pretty well most of the time. I've done it at decent scale on >>> production machines with no real issues -- and, most critically, with >>> *fewer* issues than on unpatched systems. >>> >>> Real issues do _occasionally_ occur, but so do bad disks, failed ram, bad >>> offline updates, etc., etc. Fear over lack of atomicity is letting "it's not >>> perfect!" get in the way of real world usefulness. >>> >>> Additionally, these updates aren't _silent_ -- they're logged and there's an >>> e-mailed report. >> >> Well I meant things like: >> >> Admin: "OK I will reboot box 'foo'" >> <reboots box 'foo' that was running an update> >> *boom* >> >> (well actually that case can be "solved" by using systemd-inhibitors >> ... does it do that?) > > This server is almost never rebooted, and in many years running yum-cron I've > never had any problem. > > What is the difference between automated update vs. a manual update, in terms > of potential for problems anyway? The former is happening silently while you (the admin) knows that an update is going on in the latter case. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
