On 9/5/2013 1:08 PM, Mark Tinka wrote: > On Thursday, September 05, 2013 04:55:31 PM Jim Pingle > wrote: > >> I'm not opposed to auto-update if it's done securely and >> opt-in. Especially if you can schedule the time it takes >> place (e.g. specific day, specific time frame). > > The problem with updating router/switch software, as you > know, is that you can't guarantee that what was working > before won't be broken after the update. In addition to the > downtime (large routers and switches can take several, > several minutes to boot), a lot of service providers won't > update for this reason.
Very true, though it doesn't always apply to pfSense (especially where CARP is involved). It certainly applies to Cisco and friends. That said, someone running CARP would be less likely to opt-in to an auotmatic upgrade, but the functionality could still be used to notify the admin if needed even if it does not actually apply anything. If that much relies on a single router, though, ultimately the design is the problem not the boot time. Where is this fully redundant and self-healing Internet we were promised oh so many years ago? :-) Seems to be lost to companies that cheaped out and went for many single points of failure. > Unlike laptops and desktops, the latest software for routers > and switches isn't always the greatest :-). Very true for Cisco (if you can decide which of the thousand trains and versions it would actually be updating _to_...), but the latest pfSense is always the best. :-) Jim _______________________________________________ List mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
