Re: Fwd: yum rollback !!

@ Fajar
yes exactly that would be a lot faster , and ya as Vidal has mentioned, this
whole process goes very deep when it comes to complex applications like
databases and servers , so going for a superficial log file based rollback
is a bad idea, i should be thinking in ur lines now , ......


On 4/2/08, Fajar A. Nugraha <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Satish Eerpini wrote:
>
> >
> > and ya Fajar, i actually was reluctant to use yum in my first
> > implementations of the scripts , but didn't think of a better method given
> > my low knowledge, ..... actually using storage and providing backup and
> > recovery was a option i already had, .... but my point was to design it to
> > be very simple to use and a very 'swift' application ........
> >
> >
> To comment about "swift",
> that's part of the reason why I mentioned lots of stuff about zfs in my
> earlier post.
>
> Take for example, the simplest scenario :
> - you have opensolaris (SXCE) dom0
> - you have Linux domU, using zfs-emulated-volume-backed storage, located
> on (for example) zpool/linux-root
>
> A more complex setup could involve iscsi, but I won't cover that now.
>
> A "backup" would be as simple as executing the command
> "zfs snapshot zpool/linux-root@backup"
> which would be completed almost immediately
>
> and a "rollback" would be as simple as :
> - shutting down domU
> - zfs rollback zpool/linux-root@backup
> - starting up domU
> which would only take roughly the time required to restart a domU.
>
> I believe that's lotta-quicker, simpler, and more reliable compared to any
> rpm-based rollback scenario.
>
> Regards,
>
> Fajar
>
> _______________________________________________
> Yum mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Yum mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/yum