Dominic Coulombe wrote:
Yes, you're right, I posted this a little quick...
What I was thinking was more like :
All of your machines share the same /usr disk, then you take the
master down, clone his /usr disk, apply patches to the new disk and
then do a little testing on the results.
If everything goes right, your take down a bunch of other machines
(lab machines), modify their profile so they point to the new /usr
disk with maintenance, and bring them back on.
As I wanted to say, your other machine are not aware of the changes
until you re-mount the NEWLY UPDATED filesystem on them...
I think it makes more sense like this...
You can always go back to the old /usr if needed.
I think it's not that simple: /usr isn't the only repository of data
installed in a package, and all components need to be kept in step.
/var might be okay, for example, but I don't know that it's defined to
be so.
Then there is stuff in /bin, /sbin, /lib which is (usually) in the root
filesystem. Surely those do need to be kept in step with the equivalent
directories in /usr.
I _might_ be preferable to share / and mount the volatiles/per-machine
stuff over it, but you'd need to have a good hard think about it.
Sharing nothing is certainly safe, and I'd want some idea of the
potential savings before thinking of doing it otherwise.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tourist pics http://portgeographe.environmentaldisasters.cds.merseine.nu/
do not reply off-list
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit
http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
