it has to be checked. pure and simple.
if you trust nagios, then teh check can be "no ntp alerts received".
On Nov 2, 2006, at 9:11 PM, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 20:54 , Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
I think NLD is saying that the machine can automatically sign off
when
it knows the upgrade is good to go.
Well, it knows when the machine has integrated the change. It does
*not* necessarily know if everything is functioning correctly
afterward. So, do you need to tie Nagios into this as well? What
kinds of failures then trigger no-go on a given change?)
It also doesn't deal with the problem of an unforeseen / emergency
change needing to be inserted into the sequence (see Paul's discussion
about branching etc.). Narayan's proposal assumes that the changes
are already committed and are sequenced out to clients in order as
they become ready; this makes inserting other necessary changes
problematic, especially if they require alteration of later steps. My
proposal keeps the sequencing separate from the
effectively-inalterable committed changes, and while it doesn't
necessarily catch collisions (certainly it could catch failed "patch"
runs, but semantic conflicts are harder and in some cases may well
require actual deployment to test machines) it would make it easier to
handle them.
--
brandon s. allbery [linux,solaris,freebsd,perl]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
system administrator [openafs,heimdal,too many hats]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
electrical and computer engineering, carnegie mellon university
KF8NH
_______________________________________________
lssconf-discuss mailing list
lssconf-discuss@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss
----
Andrew Hume (best -> Telework) +1 732-886-1886
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Work) +1 973-360-8651
AT&T Labs - Research; member of USENIX and LOPSA
_______________________________________________
lssconf-discuss mailing list
lssconf-discuss@inf.ed.ac.uk
http://lists.inf.ed.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/lssconf-discuss
