On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 12:48 +0100, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:42:23 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 12:31:28 +0100 > > > > "J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> wrote: > > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 12:02:34 PM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 11:24:45 +0100 > > > > > > > > "J. Roeleveld" <jo...@antarean.org> wrote: > > > > > On Friday, December 21, 2012 09:57:25 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > Just let me know when you have to maintain a lot of such systemd > > > > > > and upgrade, say, glibc. Then maybe you'll understand. > > > > > > > > > > A shared /usr means I need to update ALL the systems at once. > > > > > When /usr is not shared, I can update groups at a time. > > > > > > > > Yes, and this is what disqualifies it for the general case. If you > > > > can't update one at some point, you can't update the others or it is > > > > going to likely get broken in a random manner. > > > > > > Yes, but do you want to find out when the entire production environment is > > > down? Or would you rather do the upgrades in steps and only risk having to > > > rebuild a few nodes and have a lower performance during that time? > > > There is a big difference between 50% performance and 0%. > > > > Didn't you just state that you *have* to update all at the same time? > > Please re-read what I wrote. > I said, with a *shared* /usr, then yes, I do need to update the entire > environment at the same time.
That's not true. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. http://common-lisp.net/project/iolib
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
