Re: so for kicks, i just ...
On Monday 07 August 2006 02:57, Jonathan Horne wrote: i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single user mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of course, other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged in). i wonder how many people are brave enough, and do actually installworld without changing to single user mode? i wonder what is truly at risk from not going to single mode? I always do that on point releases. but given the infrequency of releases it doesn't seem worth saving any effort there. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: so for kicks, i just ...
--- RW [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 07 August 2006 02:57, Jonathan Horne wrote: i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single user mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of course, other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged in). i wonder how many people are brave enough, and do actually installworld without changing to single user mode? i wonder what is truly at risk from not going to single mode? I always do that on point releases. but given the infrequency of releases it doesn't seem worth saving any effort there. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I used to do it on every install and only had issue once, which was more and issue with mergemaster and going line by line and not knowing to answer l and r... with the merge option, something another installworld fixed for me... But like yourself I never have anybody but myself logged in. I got some old serial multiplexors with a 10-base2 ethernet connection for a serial console. for when I need to actually worry about real users. Has anybody had SERIOUS problems installingworld with load on the system? It just seems like a potentially bad idea, and have since started going to single user for my updates nowadays. -brian ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: so for kicks, i just ...
On 8/7/06, Jonathan Horne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i wonder how many people are brave enough, and do actually installworld without changing to single user mode? i wonder what is truly at risk from not going to single mode? I've done this plenty of times, and the only time I find I have problems is when some software is running and has been updated (a daemon like sendmail or bind). The main reason (I think) they say to drop to single user mode is to ensure that nobody is logged in and that as little as possible can intefere with the upgrade process (rogue processes changing config files while mergemaster is running). If you've stopped all processes, logged out all users except yourself, you'll probably find that your installworlds while not in single user will go without a problem. Thanks ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: so for kicks, i just ...
On Sunday 06 August 2006 21:57, Jonathan Horne wrote: i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single user mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of course, other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged in). i wonder how many people are brave enough, and do actually installworld without changing to single user mode? i wonder what is truly at risk from not going to single mode? curious, jonathan I usually don't go into single-user mode on my desktops as there is no real need. If I know libc has been bumpted, then there's a reason to go in stand-alone as there might be running processes that might be affected. On a multiple user machine it is highly recommended because 1) You warn the user that a loss of ressource (network connection etc...) is imminent due to reboot 2) Any huge processes are stopped and will not be affected by live changing of libraries and core /bin or /usr/bin and other system bin files. 3) If somethings goes wrong, you won't be affecting other users in mysterious ways, you can fix it right away and resume serving. There's probably more reasons to the logic but thoses are my so far. Nicolas. -- FreeBSD 7.0-CURRENT #11: Sun Jul 30 12:12:59 EDT 2006 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/CLK01A PGP? : http://www.clkroot.net/security/nb_root.asc pgp8UTa5U2Ex5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: so for kicks, i just ...
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, Jonathan Horne wrote: i just decided to take a box, and installworld, without going to single user mode. from what i can see, the update was completely successful. of course, other then myself (su'd to root), there were no other users logged in). i wonder how many people are brave enough, and do actually installworld without changing to single user mode? i wonder what is truly at risk from not going to single mode? I do it on production servers all the time, with multiple users logged in ... the only time I've been burnt was when trying to do an upgrade from 4.x to 6.x where enough changed that /bin/sh even blew up :( But, in that case, it was only my desktop, so no risk ... Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email . [EMAIL PROTECTED] MSN . [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo . yscrappy Skype: hub.orgICQ . 7615664 ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
