On 16 June 2014 09:22, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Matthew MillerWell I meant things like:
<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.
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?)
Rebooting during an update is equivalent of turning off the power and turning it back on during an update. It happens some small amount and as a system administrator you are to expect it to happen at some point. If systemd can stop me from pulling the power on the system.. that is a bit too HAL for me :).
Stephen J Smoogen.
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
