Re: Brief Outages...

To: " users mailing list." <lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Brief Outages...
From: Graeme Fowler <graeme@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:28:31 +0100
On 29/06/2006 17:08, Just Marc wrote:
Not always possible indeed, but if you can't afford a downtime of ONE machine, something is wrong and that something needs to be fixed first.

Agreed (it's several years since I've built this sort of system with a SPOF at the director level); but there's an awful lot of posters who send mail to this list when they're only running one director - generally speaking nobody presumes to tell them they've got that wrong and should have two, as HA is a separate thing to LVS. Related, but separate.

Debatable. People should know how to upgrade their kernels and should keep current when the situation permits

Which is exactly what the OP (Hi, John) is doing in this case. Maybe he's had no reason to do so yet, but we'll let him answer that.

As for "People should know how to upgrade their kernels" etc., the necessity of keeping current depends on what you're doing. Continually updating a la Fedora, in many cases to get bugfixes in for things you won't ever use on a given system, is debatable. I've got boxes sitting doing jobs quite happily, locked down as hard as possible, which have run for several years without updates because they don't require them.

In the specific case we have here, the OP didn't know he needed a kernel update - in fact, until last year nobody did; patches were produced by Julian when the penny dropped that the ip_vs_ftp code was mangling persistence. It is interesting, though, that the Sarge kernel still doesn't contain the fixes. Ho hum.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>