[lkml]   [2001]   [Jul]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Switching Kernels without Rebooting?
I will say that you are incredibly correct. Accualy rather funny.

> Not to be overly negative, I don't intend this email as an insult, but
> as a "shed a little light" on the discussion email. I would be _happy_ if
> you actually succeed in your project, but your comments come out as

> a) we want this "sounds real good" feature
But at least it sounds good.

> b) we don't know how we will do it, beyond some hand waving ideas
We don't. We would like to change that.

> c) we want kernel experts who know what they are doing to help us
Quite correct

> d) kernel experts who have replied so far (negatively) don't know what
> they are talking about, so please butt out
We would like any information that they have. I hope they do not.

> e) you have "started coding" by setting up a sourceforge project
That line is hillarious to me. And you are right! I merely intended to show
that we are trying to go somewhere beyond a mailing list thread. To avoid
anything more i will say *trying* agin.

> Note that you are talking about a VERY difficult problem, which is
> not available on 99.9% of systems out there. Maybe on a few highly
> specialized *nixes which were designed for this (Sequent or such),
> and probably have extra hardware support to help along. I'm _pretty_
> sure that Solaris and AIX and HP/UX do NOT do this, and don't you think
> they would want to if it were easy? It would be easier than under
> Linux from the perspective that their kernels change far less often,
> and have relatively static interfaces.
> The best proposal I've heard so far was to use MOSIX to do live job
> migration between machines, and then upgrade the kernel like normal.
> In the end, it is the jobs that are running on the kernel, and not
> the kernel or the individual machine that are the most important. One
> person pointed out that there is a single point of failure in the
> MOSIX "stub" machine, which doesn't help you in the end (how do you
> update the kernel there?). If you can figure a way to enhance MOSIX
> to allow migrating the MOSIX "stub" processes to another machine, you
> will have solved your problem in a much easier way, IMHO.

Unfortunatly I have not heard this yet. I have not been able to look at the
archives to see all of what has been posted there.

> Note also that you need to look at the _specific_ reason why you want to
> do live kernel upgrades, besides it "sounds real good". If you have such
> tight uptime deadlines that you can't take 5 minutes of downtime to boot
> a new kernel, then you are probably using a load balancing cluster anyways
> in case of hardware failure, so live kernel updates are not needed here.
> Note that all real-world high-availability systems I ever worked on
> still allowed for SCHEDULED maintenance downtime, but highly frowned
> upon UNSCHEDULED downtime. Even IBM's S/390 99.999% uptime numbers
> exclude downtime for SCHEDULED outages, which are simply a fact of life

> Please prove everyone wrong by developing a way to do this, or even
> showing a proof-of-concept (i.e. a user-space framework for translating
> every kernel data structures from one kernel version to another, that
> works across, say, a large fraction of the 2.2 kernel, or maybe from
> 2.4.0-test until 2.4.current). It doesn't have to be in-kernel (yet).
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
> \ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
> -- Dogbert

Thanks for you'r insight. Will try.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:56    [W:0.073 / U:2.584 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site