On Mar 4, 2018 9:21 PM, Ruben Safir <ruben@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 03/04/2018 05:24 PM, valdis.kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote:
> > If you can't afford the disruption of service a reboot causes, you *really*
> > need to be deploying HA or load-balancer solutions.
> >
> > Because if you can't afford a reboot's worth of 15-20 minutes of downtime, you
> > *really* can't afford the 6-8 hours you're probably going to be down if a chip
> > soldered onto the motherboard/backplane fries.
> >
> > (All of $DAYJOB's important systems are behind HA or load-balancers, as well as
> > HA-capable storage. Let's just say that some vendors make it easier than
> > others to set up 8+2 RAID6 across 10 separate shelves of storage, and designing
> > mutli-petabyte solutions without single points of failure is harder than it looks :)
> >
>
>
> These questions always lead into these philosophical discussions as to
> how I should run my boxes and theoretical flights of opinionated rubbish
> that I am not interested in. I got the answer to the question I needed
> and it is very sobering.
>
> I am not setting up a high availability cluster in my house, thank you.
If you don't need high availability, what's the problem with the occasional reboot?
> The linux kernel is integrated into dozens of devices which never see
> the light of day for kernel upgrades from PPOE routers, IOT devices,
> cellphones, VOIP boxes, electrocardiograms, menu displays for McDonalds,
> signal boxes on train systems, etc etc etc.
>
> What has been described is a huge security problem and your solution is
> a non-starter and doesn't help the broader discussion
Device makers don't love updating their devices, I don't see how you could fix that sadly. What's your solution?
Regards,
Alex
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
