5 ms·

Of course it can. It's just not necessary to reboot with solution like that.

by Gonzih 12y ago

bananas 12y ago
Until you reboot and it doesn't :)
- ithkuil 12y ago
  And if you do reboot frequently but then at one point it doesn't work ? You either have a long downtime or have a secondary ready to take over. I understand you're talking about avoiding to rely on a false sense of confidence; that's a good rule of thumb, but shouldn't get in the way of better solutions: Test the secondary more often, and automate the recovery, and you'll cover more failure cases. You don't have the resources for a secondary ? This means you're to small; neither this tool is for you; keep it simple, and just reboot. Moreover, in some context is not desirable to perform a maintenance window until some designated moments like weekends. This means that you could leave your system vulnerable for up to a whole week.
  - jdsnape 12y ago
    I agree with what you're saying about having better recovery, but I think you need some balance between the two. I'd rather look through a week's worth of changes to work out what borked the restart than two years worth!
  - zyx321 12y ago
    >And if you do reboot frequently but then at one point it doesn't work ? Then you restore from yesterday's backup. It's probably still on-site. If a kernel live patch fails, you might not notice for a long time.
    - ithkuil 12y ago
      My point is you should always be prepared that a reboot doesn't work, since it could happen at any time between your maintenance windows. Frequently exercising a feature is a good idea, especially when you depend on that feature. That's why exercising backup restores is important; you want that to work when you need it. Do you really need a production machine to boot when you need it? I think is a wrong target to optimize for, given that that failure more is already covered by backups cold/hot secondary as long as you do exercise them frequently. That said, you do have a point about whether a live patch is reliable, but this doesn't have anything to do with whether increasing the average uptime of a host is a good or bad idea w.r.t to ensuring that the machine can start or not. TBH I wouldn't personally feel much comfortable using this live update thing, but I have no experience with it. I'd be curious to know more though.

Of course it can. It's just not necessary to reboot with solution like that.

by Gonzih 12y ago

Of course it can. It's just not necessary to reboot with solution like that.

bananas 12y ago

Until you reboot and it doesn't :)

ithkuil 12y ago
And if you do reboot frequently but then at one point it doesn't work ? You either have a long downtime or have a secondary ready to take over. I understand you're talking about avoiding to rely on a false sense of confidence; that's a good rule of thumb, but shouldn't get in the way of better solutions: Test the secondary more often, and automate the recovery, and you'll cover more failure cases. You don't have the resources for a secondary ? This means you're to small; neither this tool is for you; keep it simple, and just reboot. Moreover, in some context is not desirable to perform a maintenance window until some designated moments like weekends. This means that you could leave your system vulnerable for up to a whole week.
- jdsnape 12y ago
  I agree with what you're saying about having better recovery, but I think you need some balance between the two. I'd rather look through a week's worth of changes to work out what borked the restart than two years worth!
- zyx321 12y ago
  >And if you do reboot frequently but then at one point it doesn't work ? Then you restore from yesterday's backup. It's probably still on-site. If a kernel live patch fails, you might not notice for a long time.
  - ithkuil 12y ago
    My point is you should always be prepared that a reboot doesn't work, since it could happen at any time between your maintenance windows. Frequently exercising a feature is a good idea, especially when you depend on that feature. That's why exercising backup restores is important; you want that to work when you need it. Do you really need a production machine to boot when you need it? I think is a wrong target to optimize for, given that that failure more is already covered by backups cold/hot secondary as long as you do exercise them frequently. That said, you do have a point about whether a live patch is reliable, but this doesn't have anything to do with whether increasing the average uptime of a host is a good or bad idea w.r.t to ensuring that the machine can start or not. TBH I wouldn't personally feel much comfortable using this live update thing, but I have no experience with it. I'd be curious to know more though.