Re: Re: [cgl_specs] Use case - Live patching
"Brian F. G. Bidulock" <[email protected]> Mon, 28 Mar 2005 10:33:16 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel.carrier-grade |
|---|---|
| Organization | http://www.openss7.org/ |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Corey, On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Corey Minyard wrote: > Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote: > > >Timothy, > > > >We would stop one of the redundant processors, patch it, and then > >bring it back up and switch over from the online side. A bounce > >in the middle could be problematic but that is usually true of all > >planned outages. I don't know of any telco switches that actually > >continue running call processing on the same processor that is being > >patched. > > > > > I do. Nortel switches work this way, for instance. So you patch your DMS's with both sides synced. That would be a foolish practice... --brian > > >More related is the telco requirement for version conversion and rollback. > >Once the offline side is patched and the database updated, the online side > >(unpatched) must be able to run against the new database. > > > >Rpm does not accomplish this latter requirement. > > > > > I don't think RPM really becomes involved here. I guess you could use > RPM to manage patches being installed, but it doesn't seem suitable and > I doubt smaller systems in the field have RPM databases. > > Patching is also helpful for things like radios, line cards, and other > smaller and simplex things in the system. > > -Corey > -- Brian F. G. Bidulock ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦ [email protected] ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in ¦ http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying to adapt the world to himself. ¦ ¦ Therefore all progress depends on the ¦ ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦