On Tue, 19 Nov 2013 09:48:27 -0500, Soham Chakraborty said: > I don't really think ksplice has garnered much love from upstream. The most common word used upstream to describe ksplice is "bletcherous". The reason it's disliked is because it's a poor solution for the problem. Although ksplice-like technology was used for years to upgrade telco switches on the fly, that was motivated by two major factors: 1) Nobody at a telco wants to drop dial tone while a switch reboots. 2) Telco switches are building-sized and expensive, so HA failover wasn't a realistic option. Although the first is still an issue for many sites, there's little or no justification in 2013 for the second. If you're in the sort of environment where you really need the sort of uptime that drive you to consider ksplice, you *really* should be doing load balancing and HA failover with heartbeats - that will not only allow you to actually reboot each server cleanly, but *also* protect you against blown DIMMs, crashed system disks, and all the *other* whoopsies that can cost you one or two nine's of reliability. Seriously - if you can't afford the downtime to reboot, youy can't afford *NOT* to be doing a full HA configuration - and possibly looking at geographic separation of the hot failover site.
Attachment:
pgpN9dGU8yX7I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
