6 ms·
My first thoughts on reading this were that it was super-cool. Then I thought about customers who could benefit from it (we provide Linux consultancy to a nu
by forkqueue 17y ago
My first thoughts on reading this were that it was super-cool. Then I thought about customers who could benefit from it (we provide Linux consultancy to a number of medium-large enterprises), and I pretty much drew a blank.
If you're large enough for the downtime associated with a reboot to be a big issue then you've presumably already got a minimum of two machines performing the same function. That being the case, it's no problem to remove each node from the cluster in turn, upgrade the kernel, reboot, test and add it back in.
That rather makes the service more of a convenience. For example, for active/passive setups where a failover produces an undesirable amount of downtime (say 30 seconds whilst services migrate), or single server setups where uptime isn't critical, but downtime is still a pain.
Cool technology, but perhaps an example of a solution looking for a problem. I think at $4/month the convenience aspect can probably justify the cost in many cases.
- DEinspanjer 17y agoOur IT department has twice weekly scheduled maintenance windows. Every month, a couple of those windows will include taking down parts of the infrastructure for kernel updates. Frequently, the services involved are clustered and involve no user downtime, that said, it still takes a team of three or four people a few hours to administrate the maintenance, monitoring to be sure everything is going smoothly and putting out any fires that might arise. 3.5 * ~$100 * 1 hour * 2 times a month = ~$700 per month $700 / $3 per server = 200 servers that could potentially be reduced to seconds of maintenance administration instead of an hour.