[cgl_discussion] Re: [cgl_specs] Use case - Live patching

[Brian F. G. Bidulock]

Corey,

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005, Corey Minyard wrote:

> Brian F. G. Bidulock wrote:
> 
> >Timothy,
> >
> >We would stop one of the redundant processors, patch it, and then
> >bring it back up and switch over from the online side.  A bounce
> >in the middle could be problematic but that is usually true of all
> >planned outages.  I don't know of any telco switches that actually
> >continue running call processing on the same processor that is being
> >patched.
> >  
> >
> I do.  Nortel switches work this way, for instance.

So you patch your DMS's with both sides synced.  That would be a foolish
practice...

--brian

> 
> >More related is the telco requirement for version conversion and rollback.
> >Once the offline side is patched and the database updated, the online side
> >(unpatched) must be able to run against the new database.
> >
> >Rpm does not accomplish this latter requirement.
> >  
> >
> I don't think RPM really becomes involved here.  I guess you could use 
> RPM to manage patches being installed, but it doesn't seem suitable and 
> I doubt smaller systems in the field have RPM databases.
> 
> Patching is also helpful for things like radios, line cards, and other 
> smaller and simplex things in the system.
> 
> -Corey
> 

-- 
Brian F. G. Bidulock    ¦ The reasonable man adapts himself to the ¦
bidulock at openss7.org    ¦ world; the unreasonable one persists in  ¦
http://www.openss7.org/ ¦ trying  to adapt the  world  to himself. ¦
                        ¦ Therefore  all  progress  depends on the ¦
                        ¦ unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw ¦