|
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.
Graeme
|
