Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:22:20 -0500 From: Karl Denninger <karl@denninger.net> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>, Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> Cc: jim-c@charter.net Subject: Re: Newbie Question About System Update Message-ID: <20050422092220.C54895@denninger.net> In-Reply-To: <20050422100909.48e63ba8.wmoran@potentialtech.com>; from Bill Moran on Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 10:09:09AM -0400 References: <20050419120053.6ad17df1.wmoran@potentialtech.com> <200504202004.j3KK4BdA003074@drjekyll.mkbuelow.net> <20050422100909.48e63ba8.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 10:09:09AM -0400, Bill Moran wrote: > Matthias Buelow <mkb@incubus.de> wrote: > > > Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> writes: > > > > >Fact is, trying to update a running system could result in silent failures. > > >The system can not replace programs that are in use, so there's always the > > >chance that something or other won't get updated (cron would be an excellent > > >example ... do you always shut cron off when you update? How about syslogd?) > > > > This is complete nonsense. > > Yes, and no. > > As was pointed out, the install process does not "cp", so it doesn't have > to deal with this problem. I was wrong. However, it's still true that > you can't copy over an executable in use, it's just easy to work around > it. > > > >On a production system, you should have a serial terminal connected so you > > >can go to single-user mode remotely to do updates. There are fairly > > >inexpensive serial terminal boxes available from a number of vendors, and > > >if you have a spare machine available, you can always hook it up as a > > >serial terminal. > > > > I was talking about a colocation situation, where you most likely will > > never see the machine. Networked console boards are usually available > > but may not always be cost effective. I would agree that such a board > > may be a necessity in a high profile production server but if you are a > > small company, or use a machine privately, the extra cost often > > outweighs the gain. And a good colo hoster usually also has qualified > > staff. > > Who are you using for colo? I'd like to contact them. > > Unless your server is utterly unimportant, the last thing you want to > have happen is an upgrade where the kernel doesn't boot and you have a > dead system until someone can hook a console to it. > > Most colos I've seen charge you a premium to have someone hook a console > up for you. I asked one how much it would cost to hook up a serial console > and give it an IP for one month, and their response was "we don't do that, > you have to pay our tech $160/hour to sit on the phone with you and enter > what you want." While this seems to be a worst case scenerio, it doesn't > seem to be an uncommon attitude. > > A lesson to all of you, when you choose a colo, don't just look at the > cost of having your box sit there - estimate the cost of doing maintenance > and handling problems, those are hidden costs where many colos will rape > you. Colocation that does not include serial console access is IMHO worthless. The costs associated with having one of their people do anything other than maintain/replace failed hardware (which is part of their job if you are renting the hardware from them) is astronomical - both in terms of money and time wasted. Neither should be considered accepted - to anyone. Most colo providers are worthless in this regard. They just "don't get it". -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do! http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING! http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME! http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050422092220.C54895>