Sarah Jelinek wrote: > Ethan Quach wrote: >> >> >> Jan Damborsky wrote: >>> Hi Evan, >>> >>> >>> Evan Layton wrote: >>>> Hi Folks, >>>> >>>> We are in need of your input on requirements for the version >>>> compatibility work. >>>> >>>> Some draft examples of requirements that we're looking at are: >>>> * Define the versions of the installations we will support >>>> o 1 to 1 match for live CD and pkg based installs. >>> >>> Just to clarify, by LiveCD installs, you mean using cpio transfer >>> mechanism ? >>> >>> As far as pkg based installs are concerned, how 1:1 match >>> requirement maps >>> to the existing IPS versioning scheme ? Will it be always assured >>> that this >>> information can be derived from AI manifest ? >> >> With what we currently have in the manifest, it is impossible to >> assure this >> by inspecting the manifest. We would need to *require* that the specific >> build be in given in the manifest, not just the repo and branch. >> >>> How 1:1 match requirement will affect scalability with respect to >>> number of AI images >>> administrator will have to maintain ? >> >> Not sure what you're asking here. Are you thinking of a particular >> implementation? In general, I don't think the CVERS problem is >> going to be solved on the server. To keep the client modular, its >> got to be able to validate whatever its given at run time anyway. >> >>> >>> >>>> o possible mismatch for image based installs such as >>>> replicated images. >>>> * Define the behavior when a mismatch is detected >>>> o which do we handle and which do we flag as an error. >>> >>> When IPS transfer mechanism is used for the installation, I am >>> thinking if >>> there might be possibility to get rid of this problem or move it to >>> the more >>> explored area by using similar IPS mechanism we have on running >>> system when >>> we do the updates. >>> >>> For now IPS fresh install is one step process - just 'pkg install' >>> packages >>> listed in AI manifest of the version specified in AI manifest. >>> >>> The another approach might be to do the fresh install as two step >>> process: >>> >>> [1] install the system with the same version as booted AI image and >>> do the all >>> post install config stuff. >>> [2] If version specified in AI manifest is newer, use 'pkg >>> image-update' >>> mechanism to update the installed bits to the required version. >>> >>> Not sure, if this approach is viable, but it seems that the >>> incompatibility >>> problem would move to the area being used and explored. >>> >>> There are issues we would need to check with IPS team, but before >>> starting >>> that more detailed discussion, I am wondering, if it is even worth to >>> consider that approach. >> >> It doesn't seem to solve the problem for when an older build is wanted. >> i.e. you can't image-update backwards. >> > Hi Ethan, > > I think that trying to solve the going backward problem isn't > something we should do. I believe that we need to exclude this case > from our requirements.
Did I miss a memo :-) You and Jan seem to be on the same page here, but I haven't heard the reason why we should exclude support for this case. > >> In general, using IPS's pkg ideology to ensure the contents of the IMAGE >> is intact is a good idea. So moving any and all, if possible, of our >> ICTs >> into pkg contents is what we are driving towards. But their are >> structural >> pieces outside of the IMAGE -- disk, zpool, grub, etc -- that pkg >> doesn't >> touch and we still need to consider those in the CVERS problem. >> >> > It is true that we don't have control of everything outside of the > image. It seems that the versioning mechanism would help us to manage > that. For example, if we detected a zpool version mismatch between our > booted kernel and what we are installing, we could create an SMF > enhanced profile that would reset the version of the zpool correctly > on first reboot. When you say "reset" you mean uprev right? I guess for completeness and predictability we could do that, but I don't know if that's crucially necessary since later zfs bits can run on older version pools okay. > > I believe the intent is for us to use SMF to do configuration at first > reboot, correct? Are there things you envision that we could 'correct' > with this mechanism + "pkg image-update' on the alt root? Doing the 'pkg image-update' on the installed altroot wasn't my idea, and I'm actually trying work through what it buys us. I guess if we embed ICT with the installed bits, then doing the initial install from the same bld repo causes us to run ICT of the known supported matched bits. Then the image update brings us to the final desired build. ..hmm, it would seem like this process is still subject to whatever incompatibilities the current -- beadm+pkg image-update -- process on any running system is subject to. thanks, -ethan
