Casper.Dik at Sun.COM writes: > I do not see how liveupgrade is apreciably different from > booting over the network and running upgrade on the alternate > root.
The downtime when doing a Live Upgrade of the system is measured in minutes -- it's the time to reboot the system. The downtime when doing a standard upgrade is measured in tens of minutes to hours or, if you have a large number of Zones, with the aid of a calendar. Downtime is an appreciable difference between the two mechanisms, and one that I suspect ought to be important to many users. > The fact that somehow the need is felt to terminate the one > where they are really both the same program running in the > same environment is very short sighted. It's a matter of testing, support, and resources, as much as anything else. As with many software projects, you can either have large numbers of different options, all thinly supported, or fewer options with more robust support. Your choice. :-/ > Liveupgrade is a burden because it requires much more maintenance > (upgrade punchin twice, e.g., and remembering that you need to > update certain configuration files twice) That's not true. Use 'lumake' to copy the configuration rather than maintaining two independent environments and this problem goes away. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
