On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:53:16 -0600, Adam Thornton wrote: >On Dec 10, 2004, at 1:19 PM, Lee Stewart wrote: >> I can migrate the running Windows or Linux servers off >> the box I need to update, onto various other boxes while the update is >> being done, then back to the updated server -- all without ever taking >> the >> servers down. > >Won't there be some interruption time between the suspend-to-disk on >the first set of servers, and the resume-from-disk on the second set? >That is, the servers don't know they were down, but connected guests >will see a pause there, won't they? >
If that is what he is talking about, we had that facility working 20 years ago (or better) on VM. It turned out to need be as useful as the proponents had thought, so we removed the last vestigates of it during Y2K updating. It is SO much easier to clone stuff running under VM (even if you are going to put it onto another box), that suspend to disk just isn't very useful. The clients are the problem in most cases, and it is simpler to clone ahead of time and have load balancing take care of one going away. >Adam > Lloyd Another of the Old F*rts ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390
