|
On 2000-11-21T10:43:45,
John Cronin <jsc3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> The problems this leads to, of course, is a proliferation of configurations,
> none quite the same. This is a *SERIOUS* problem, but not fatal.
This problem gets worse (at least for the distributions) if the users had even
more choices of kernels to run.
> It does make generic support much more difficult though, as Joseph has
> pointed out.
I don't think it is quite that bad.
If the distribution ships LVS in the kernel + corressponding ipvsadm, how is
this support different from supporting someone who patched it in themselves?
Seriously, how often have we seen a question which was traced down to a kernel
bug?
> I wonder what will happen if Redhat included reiserfs in their distributions?
> No offense to Suse, but at least in the US, Redhat is used far more widely
> than Suse. In particular, what if the version included with Redhat is
> different than that included with Suse, which is different than the
> "current stable" release?
I understand this issue.
Yes, having multiple vendors ship different (with regard to features) versions
of the same code _is_ annoying, but it can barely be avoided.
This has already happened with regard to the RAID code for one.
But at least with regard to LVS, the versions aren't _that_ much different so
far, and you can quite easily tell from the LVS version number.
In Europe, it is exactly the other way round BTW ;-)
> I certainly do. It is a *LOT* of work to include error checking and
> useful error messages, and boring to boot, but it is often also quite
> helpful. If I ever get a break from my real job, maybe I could work
> on the install process for LVS.
With Linux 2.4, LVS is "just another netfilter module", so this will become
a lot easier. Just replace the netfilter module.
> I agree. If Suse or Redhat don't include the extra patches, then nobody
> will use their distributions - they will find somebody who does.
Or worse, people will not consider using Linux at all as their OS, because
they can't get the needed features out of the box.
> Exactly. This does mean supporting multiple revisions of the code, but
> once you reach a certain critical mass of users, this just can't be helped.
Most problems relate to general issues with understanding how LVS works. The
kernel patch used for that isn't quite a problem for that.
> It also means that Suse and Redhat need to be on the ball about supplying
> "must have" updates that fix serious problems.
Definetely. If it is a must have update, we have to put it out. We do the same
all the time, although mostly only security relevant updates qualify as
putting out an update between releases.
(Unless the feature is really impressive)
Sincerely,
Lars Marowsky-Brée <lmb@xxxxxxx>
Development HA
--
Perfection is our goal, excellence will be tolerated. -- J. Yahl
|
