Re: Dropping slcosi in favor of anaconda only client image instantiation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 17:59 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-06 at 12:55 -0500, Jeffrey Law wrote:
> 
> > What I haven't wrapped my head around is what advantages we really get
> > from blasting down filesystem diffs over providing the clients with an
> > update manifest.   But I haven't really thought much about it.
> 
> 	I think the explanation that makes most sense to me is the
> "reduce/remove moving parts" thing.
I can certainly buy that.

> 
> 	By making the root filesystem read-only, and making the update
> mechanism as simple as possible (on the client), you reduce the risk of
> something breaking on the client.
I wasn't envisioning changing that the read-only property of the root
filesystem during normal operation.  I think we'd both agree readonly
root is a good thing.

The root FS has to go R/W for the update for either scheme.  Presumably
we're sticking with the atomic update model where updates are applied
at reboot time?

Note that I don't see a lot of difference between capturing the FS
and an update manifest.  In the end they probably both look similar.
Replace X with Y, remove Z, create Q.  What changes are whether or 
not those represent files or packages.

I think the key advantage of sending FS level updates over sending
changes to a profile is the client doesn't have to execute arbitrary
scripts found in RPM files.

Jeff


[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux