On Mar 4, 2018 9:21 PM, Ruben Safir <ru...@mrbrklyn.com> wrote: > > On 03/04/2018 05:24 PM, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu 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@kernelnewbies.org https://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies