[gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Helmut Jarausch]

Hi,

I'm curious how portage solves its most difficult part (in my eyes).

When installing a dynamic library (by "hand") I have often got an
error messages if the corresponding library is currently in use.

How does portage succeed anyway.
(I have the suspicion that it does not succeed always, since sometimes
only rebooting solves some very strange problems)

How to replace fundamental X11-libaries on a system running X11
or even more suprising, how can I replace a running glibc ?

Many thanks for enlightening me,
Helmut.

-- 
Helmut Jarausch

Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
RWTH - Aachen University
D 52056 Aachen, Germany

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 11 December 2009 11:11:41 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm curious how portage solves its most difficult part (in my eyes).
> 
> When installing a dynamic library (by "hand") I have often got an
> error messages if the corresponding library is currently in use.
> 
> How does portage succeed anyway.
> (I have the suspicion that it does not succeed always, since sometimes
> only rebooting solves some very strange problems)
> 
> How to replace fundamental X11-libaries on a system running X11
> or even more suprising, how can I replace a running glibc ?
> 
> Many thanks for enlightening me,
> Helmut.
> 

Portage does nothing special, as dealing with this is a Unix thing.

On Unix, the inode is the file, not the directory entry. If you want to 
replace an open file, the system simply does it and updates the dentry to 
point to a new inode. Any spp using the old file will continue to use it as it 
still has a handle to the inode. The inode is only fully deleted when the last 
app using it closes it

If you update a library to a new version with an API break, the lib should get 
a new soname so the file is a different name, hence no collision (symlinks to 
libraries excepted).

This is how it should work, any code that tries to do it a different way is by 
definition broken, that's why portage needs take no special measures.

All of this is in complete contrast to other broken systems, such as Windows 
for example. On Windows, the filename IS the file, so upgrades are horrible. 
Installers must put the file somewhere else and have the final steps and 
registry updates done at next reboot before anything has a chance to open 
libs. This is why fairly deep updates on Windows often require multiple reboot 
- multiple apps installed multiple libs to be fiddled with multiple times ....


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Helmut Jarausch]

On 11 Dec, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 11:11:41 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm curious how portage solves its most difficult part (in my eyes).
>> 
>> When installing a dynamic library (by "hand") I have often got an
>> error messages if the corresponding library is currently in use.
>> 
>> How does portage succeed anyway.
>> (I have the suspicion that it does not succeed always, since sometimes
>> only rebooting solves some very strange problems)
>> 
>> How to replace fundamental X11-libaries on a system running X11
>> or even more suprising, how can I replace a running glibc ?
>> 
>> Many thanks for enlightening me,
>> Helmut.
>> 
> 
> Portage does nothing special, as dealing with this is a Unix thing.
> 
> On Unix, the inode is the file, not the directory entry. If you want to 
> replace an open file, the system simply does it and updates the dentry to 
> point to a new inode. Any spp using the old file will continue to use it as it 
> still has a handle to the inode. The inode is only fully deleted when the last 
> app using it closes it
> 
> If you update a library to a new version with an API break, the lib should get 
> a new soname so the file is a different name, hence no collision (symlinks to 
> libraries excepted).
> 
> This is how it should work, any code that tries to do it a different way is by 
> definition broken, that's why portage needs take no special measures.
> 
> All of this is in complete contrast to other broken systems, such as Windows 
> for example. On Windows, the filename IS the file, so upgrades are horrible. 
> Installers must put the file somewhere else and have the final steps and 
> registry updates done at next reboot before anything has a chance to open 
> libs. This is why fairly deep updates on Windows often require multiple reboot 
> - multiple apps installed multiple libs to be fiddled with multiple times ....
> 

Many thanks Alan,

so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries used,
isn't it?
On the other hand running applications should continue to run, which is
not always the case, e.g. recently using cvs as non-root user just
hanged. Rebooting the system solved it (since I update my system nearly
each day).

Thanks again Alan,
Helmut.


-- 
Helmut Jarausch

Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
RWTH - Aachen University
D 52056 Aachen, Germany

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 11 December 2009 13:02:36 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> Many thanks Alan,
> 
> so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries used,
> isn't it?

No, not at all, you conclude wrongly.

Unix works the way it does precisely so you *don't* require a reboot to use 
new libraries. They are already there and fully installed and fully 
operational. You just have to start using them - this may require restarting 
the relevant app that uses them and perhaps ldconfig.

Windows is the brain-dead johnnie-come-lately here that requires reboots. But 
then again, Windows requires a reboot when it detects the pointer has moved so 
that isn't surprising

> On the other hand running applications should continue to run, which is
> not always the case, e.g. recently using cvs as non-root user just
> hanged. Rebooting the system solved it (since I update my system nearly
> each day).
 
It was probably trying to use different versions of two matched libs. You 
should not have needed a reboot to fix that.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> On 11 Dec, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>   
>> On Friday 11 December 2009 11:11:41 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>>     
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I'm curious how portage solves its most difficult part (in my eyes).
>>>
>>> When installing a dynamic library (by "hand") I have often got an
>>> error messages if the corresponding library is currently in use.
>>>
>>> How does portage succeed anyway.
>>> (I have the suspicion that it does not succeed always, since sometimes
>>> only rebooting solves some very strange problems)
>>>
>>> How to replace fundamental X11-libaries on a system running X11
>>> or even more suprising, how can I replace a running glibc ?
>>>
>>> Many thanks for enlightening me,
>>> Helmut.
>>>
>>>       
>> Portage does nothing special, as dealing with this is a Unix thing.
>>
>> On Unix, the inode is the file, not the directory entry. If you want to 
>> replace an open file, the system simply does it and updates the dentry to 
>> point to a new inode. Any spp using the old file will continue to use it as it 
>> still has a handle to the inode. The inode is only fully deleted when the last 
>> app using it closes it
>>
>> If you update a library to a new version with an API break, the lib should get 
>> a new soname so the file is a different name, hence no collision (symlinks to 
>> libraries excepted).
>>
>> This is how it should work, any code that tries to do it a different way is by 
>> definition broken, that's why portage needs take no special measures.
>>
>> All of this is in complete contrast to other broken systems, such as Windows 
>> for example. On Windows, the filename IS the file, so upgrades are horrible. 
>> Installers must put the file somewhere else and have the final steps and 
>> registry updates done at next reboot before anything has a chance to open 
>> libs. This is why fairly deep updates on Windows often require multiple reboot 
>> - multiple apps installed multiple libs to be fiddled with multiple times ....
>>
>>     
>
> Many thanks Alan,
>
> so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries used,
> isn't it?
> On the other hand running applications should continue to run, which is
> not always the case, e.g. recently using cvs as non-root user just
> hanged. Rebooting the system solved it (since I update my system nearly
> each day).
>
> Thanks again Alan,
> Helmut.
>   

I'll add two cents here.  Let's say I upgrade Seamonkey which is my web 
browser / email program.  I sync and notice there is a update to 
Seamonkey available and I let emerge update it.  When the install is 
complete, I don't have to reboot or even log out of KDE.  All I have to 
do is close Seamonkey and start it again.  It will then load the new 
updated version and run it.

The same could be said for a service like cups.  If you update cups, all 
you have to do is restart the service.  It will stop the old service 
then load up the new service that was just installed.  Just a simple 
"/etc/init.d/cupsd restart" will work just fine. 

If you upgrade something kde, say kdelibs or some other kde base 
package, then all you need to do is log out of KDE and log back in 
again.  Sort of the same with updating xorg, logout, go to a console and 
restart xdm or whatever you use to start X.  I usually use the ctrl alt 
backspace key but restarting the service is better, or so some have said 
anyway. 

Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a 
technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new 
kernel. 

Hope that helps a little.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Daniel Troeder]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4758 bytes --]

On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 07:16 -0600, Dale wrote:
> Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> > On 11 Dec, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >   
> >> On Friday 11 December 2009 11:11:41 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> >>     
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I'm curious how portage solves its most difficult part (in my eyes).
> >>>
> >>> When installing a dynamic library (by "hand") I have often got an
> >>> error messages if the corresponding library is currently in use.
> >>>
> >>> How does portage succeed anyway.
> >>> (I have the suspicion that it does not succeed always, since sometimes
> >>> only rebooting solves some very strange problems)
> >>>
> >>> How to replace fundamental X11-libaries on a system running X11
> >>> or even more suprising, how can I replace a running glibc ?
> >>>
> >>> Many thanks for enlightening me,
> >>> Helmut.
> >>>
> >>>       
> >> Portage does nothing special, as dealing with this is a Unix thing.
> >>
> >> On Unix, the inode is the file, not the directory entry. If you want to 
> >> replace an open file, the system simply does it and updates the dentry to 
> >> point to a new inode. Any spp using the old file will continue to use it as it 
> >> still has a handle to the inode. The inode is only fully deleted when the last 
> >> app using it closes it
> >>
> >> If you update a library to a new version with an API break, the lib should get 
> >> a new soname so the file is a different name, hence no collision (symlinks to 
> >> libraries excepted).
> >>
> >> This is how it should work, any code that tries to do it a different way is by 
> >> definition broken, that's why portage needs take no special measures.
> >>
> >> All of this is in complete contrast to other broken systems, such as Windows 
> >> for example. On Windows, the filename IS the file, so upgrades are horrible. 
> >> Installers must put the file somewhere else and have the final steps and 
> >> registry updates done at next reboot before anything has a chance to open 
> >> libs. This is why fairly deep updates on Windows often require multiple reboot 
> >> - multiple apps installed multiple libs to be fiddled with multiple times ....
> >>
> >>     
> >
> > Many thanks Alan,
> >
> > so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries used,
> > isn't it?
> > On the other hand running applications should continue to run, which is
> > not always the case, e.g. recently using cvs as non-root user just
> > hanged. Rebooting the system solved it (since I update my system nearly
> > each day).
> >
> > Thanks again Alan,
> > Helmut.
> >   
> 
> I'll add two cents here.  Let's say I upgrade Seamonkey which is my web 
> browser / email program.  I sync and notice there is a update to 
> Seamonkey available and I let emerge update it.  When the install is 
> complete, I don't have to reboot or even log out of KDE.  All I have to 
> do is close Seamonkey and start it again.  It will then load the new 
> updated version and run it.
> 
> The same could be said for a service like cups.  If you update cups, all 
> you have to do is restart the service.  It will stop the old service 
> then load up the new service that was just installed.  Just a simple 
> "/etc/init.d/cupsd restart" will work just fine. 
> 
> If you upgrade something kde, say kdelibs or some other kde base 
> package, then all you need to do is log out of KDE and log back in 
> again.  Sort of the same with updating xorg, logout, go to a console and 
> restart xdm or whatever you use to start X.  I usually use the ctrl alt 
> backspace key but restarting the service is better, or so some have said 
> anyway. 
> 
> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a 
> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new 
> kernel. 
> 
> Hope that helps a little.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 

I absolutely concur with Alan and Dale, I just want to warn a bit about
complex X11-environments like gnome or kde. If you logout and login
again, it is NOT secure, that all gnome/kde/qt apps have been closed.
There are services (gconf, kded, pulse, etc) that take a time to quit,
or sometimes just don't :(

Then, when an app was linked against a symlink, and that left-over-app
too, the dynamic loader may not load a newly installed library, but
reuses the one in memory (from the left-over-app). [1]

It's still valid, that no reboot is needed, but you sure can be
unlucky :)

Bye,
Daniel


[1] don't take this info for granted, I'm no expert in this - just what
I understood from reading...


-- 
PGP key @ http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xBB9D4887&op=get
# gpg --recv-keys --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0xBB9D4887


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Mickaël Bucas]

2009/12/11 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 13:02:36 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>> Many thanks Alan,
>>
>> so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries used,
>> isn't it?
>
> No, not at all, you conclude wrongly.
>
> Unix works the way it does precisely so you *don't* require a reboot to use
> new libraries. They are already there and fully installed and fully
> operational. You just have to start using them - this may require restarting
> the relevant app that uses them and perhaps ldconfig.
>

To find out which files have been replaced, you can use the following command :
lsof | grep DEL
This will give you all files that have been deleted since they have
been loaded by the process.
From the process name, you can deduce the service and restart it.
I've never needed a reboot for this kind of problem.
You may have to switch to run level 1 to restart some important
services like udev.

> Windows is the brain-dead johnnie-come-lately here that requires reboots. But
> then again, Windows requires a reboot when it detects the pointer has moved so
> that isn't surprising
>
>> On the other hand running applications should continue to run, which is
>> not always the case, e.g. recently using cvs as non-root user just
>> hanged. Rebooting the system solved it (since I update my system nearly
>> each day).
>
> It was probably trying to use different versions of two matched libs. You
> should not have needed a reboot to fix that.
>
>
> --
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
>
>


Mickaël Bucas

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 11 December 2009 15:16:01 Dale wrote:
> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a 
> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new 
> kernel. 
> 

And these days, not even then :-)

[it requires some voodoo but is certainly possible]

[[and I don't mean build and install a new kernel, I really do mean loa ti 
into memory and run it, dispensing with the old one]]

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Mickaël Bucas wrote:
> 2009/12/11 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
>   
>> On Friday 11 December 2009 13:02:36 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>>     
>>> Many thanks Alan,
>>>
>>> so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries used,
>>> isn't it?
>>>       
>> No, not at all, you conclude wrongly.
>>
>> Unix works the way it does precisely so you *don't* require a reboot to use
>> new libraries. They are already there and fully installed and fully
>> operational. You just have to start using them - this may require restarting
>> the relevant app that uses them and perhaps ldconfig.
>>
>>     
>
> To find out which files have been replaced, you can use the following command :
> lsof | grep DEL
> This will give you all files that have been deleted since they have
> been loaded by the process.
> >From the process name, you can deduce the service and restart it.
> I've never needed a reboot for this kind of problem.
> You may have to switch to run level 1 to restart some important
> services like udev.
>
>
> Mickaël Bucas
>   

Actually, you can kill udev and restart it.  Kill the process and then 
run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.

Dale

:-)   :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Daniel Troeder wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 07:16 -0600, Dale wrote:
>   
>> Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>>     
>>> On 11 Dec, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> On Friday 11 December 2009 11:11:41 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm curious how portage solves its most difficult part (in my eyes).
>>>>>
>>>>> When installing a dynamic library (by "hand") I have often got an
>>>>> error messages if the corresponding library is currently in use.
>>>>>
>>>>> How does portage succeed anyway.
>>>>> (I have the suspicion that it does not succeed always, since sometimes
>>>>> only rebooting solves some very strange problems)
>>>>>
>>>>> How to replace fundamental X11-libaries on a system running X11
>>>>> or even more suprising, how can I replace a running glibc ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Many thanks for enlightening me,
>>>>> Helmut.
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Portage does nothing special, as dealing with this is a Unix thing.
>>>>
>>>> On Unix, the inode is the file, not the directory entry. If you want to 
>>>> replace an open file, the system simply does it and updates the dentry to 
>>>> point to a new inode. Any spp using the old file will continue to use it as it 
>>>> still has a handle to the inode. The inode is only fully deleted when the last 
>>>> app using it closes it
>>>>
>>>> If you update a library to a new version with an API break, the lib should get 
>>>> a new soname so the file is a different name, hence no collision (symlinks to 
>>>> libraries excepted).
>>>>
>>>> This is how it should work, any code that tries to do it a different way is by 
>>>> definition broken, that's why portage needs take no special measures.
>>>>
>>>> All of this is in complete contrast to other broken systems, such as Windows 
>>>> for example. On Windows, the filename IS the file, so upgrades are horrible. 
>>>> Installers must put the file somewhere else and have the final steps and 
>>>> registry updates done at next reboot before anything has a chance to open 
>>>> libs. This is why fairly deep updates on Windows often require multiple reboot 
>>>> - multiple apps installed multiple libs to be fiddled with multiple times ....
>>>>
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Many thanks Alan,
>>>
>>> so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries used,
>>> isn't it?
>>> On the other hand running applications should continue to run, which is
>>> not always the case, e.g. recently using cvs as non-root user just
>>> hanged. Rebooting the system solved it (since I update my system nearly
>>> each day).
>>>
>>> Thanks again Alan,
>>> Helmut.
>>>   
>>>       
>> I'll add two cents here.  Let's say I upgrade Seamonkey which is my web 
>> browser / email program.  I sync and notice there is a update to 
>> Seamonkey available and I let emerge update it.  When the install is 
>> complete, I don't have to reboot or even log out of KDE.  All I have to 
>> do is close Seamonkey and start it again.  It will then load the new 
>> updated version and run it.
>>
>> The same could be said for a service like cups.  If you update cups, all 
>> you have to do is restart the service.  It will stop the old service 
>> then load up the new service that was just installed.  Just a simple 
>> "/etc/init.d/cupsd restart" will work just fine. 
>>
>> If you upgrade something kde, say kdelibs or some other kde base 
>> package, then all you need to do is log out of KDE and log back in 
>> again.  Sort of the same with updating xorg, logout, go to a console and 
>> restart xdm or whatever you use to start X.  I usually use the ctrl alt 
>> backspace key but restarting the service is better, or so some have said 
>> anyway. 
>>
>> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a 
>> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new 
>> kernel. 
>>
>> Hope that helps a little.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-) 
>>     
>
> I absolutely concur with Alan and Dale, I just want to warn a bit about
> complex X11-environments like gnome or kde. If you logout and login
> again, it is NOT secure, that all gnome/kde/qt apps have been closed.
> There are services (gconf, kded, pulse, etc) that take a time to quit,
> or sometimes just don't :(
>
> Then, when an app was linked against a symlink, and that left-over-app
> too, the dynamic loader may not load a newly installed library, but
> reuses the one in memory (from the left-over-app). [1]
>
> It's still valid, that no reboot is needed, but you sure can be
> unlucky :)
>
> Bye,
> Daniel
>
>
> [1] don't take this info for granted, I'm no expert in this - just what
> I understood from reading...
>
>   

This can be true.  I have ran into this a couple times.  I sometimes go 
to single user, rc single, and when I look at the running processes, 
they are still some X or KDE processes running. 

If I understand how this works tho, any new things will start with the 
new files and not the old ones.  For example, you have Konqueror open 
and running and it is updated.  If you open a new one from the menu, it 
should load the new files.  A lot of this would depend on how it forks I 
guess.  I think Seamonkey for example would just fork from the original 
process and would use the old files or maybe give a error message.  I 
know it looks for a already running process when it starts.

I guess some of this depends on how the program is started.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Freitag 11 Dezember 2009, Daniel Troeder wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 07:16 -0600, Dale wrote:
> > Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> > > On 11 Dec, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > >> On Friday 11 December 2009 11:11:41 Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I'm curious how portage solves its most difficult part (in my eyes).
> > >>>
> > >>> When installing a dynamic library (by "hand") I have often got an
> > >>> error messages if the corresponding library is currently in use.
> > >>>
> > >>> How does portage succeed anyway.
> > >>> (I have the suspicion that it does not succeed always, since
> > >>> sometimes only rebooting solves some very strange problems)
> > >>>
> > >>> How to replace fundamental X11-libaries on a system running X11
> > >>> or even more suprising, how can I replace a running glibc ?
> > >>>
> > >>> Many thanks for enlightening me,
> > >>> Helmut.
> > >>
> > >> Portage does nothing special, as dealing with this is a Unix thing.
> > >>
> > >> On Unix, the inode is the file, not the directory entry. If you want
> > >> to replace an open file, the system simply does it and updates the
> > >> dentry to point to a new inode. Any spp using the old file will
> > >> continue to use it as it still has a handle to the inode. The inode is
> > >> only fully deleted when the last app using it closes it
> > >>
> > >> If you update a library to a new version with an API break, the lib
> > >> should get a new soname so the file is a different name, hence no
> > >> collision (symlinks to libraries excepted).
> > >>
> > >> This is how it should work, any code that tries to do it a different
> > >> way is by definition broken, that's why portage needs take no special
> > >> measures.
> > >>
> > >> All of this is in complete contrast to other broken systems, such as
> > >> Windows for example. On Windows, the filename IS the file, so upgrades
> > >> are horrible. Installers must put the file somewhere else and have the
> > >> final steps and registry updates done at next reboot before anything
> > >> has a chance to open libs. This is why fairly deep updates on Windows
> > >> often require multiple reboot - multiple apps installed multiple libs
> > >> to be fiddled with multiple times ....
> > >
> > > Many thanks Alan,
> > >
> > > so I conclude that rebooting IS necessary to get the new libraries
> > > used, isn't it?
> > > On the other hand running applications should continue to run, which is
> > > not always the case, e.g. recently using cvs as non-root user just
> > > hanged. Rebooting the system solved it (since I update my system nearly
> > > each day).
> > >
> > > Thanks again Alan,
> > > Helmut.
> >
> > I'll add two cents here.  Let's say I upgrade Seamonkey which is my web
> > browser / email program.  I sync and notice there is a update to
> > Seamonkey available and I let emerge update it.  When the install is
> > complete, I don't have to reboot or even log out of KDE.  All I have to
> > do is close Seamonkey and start it again.  It will then load the new
> > updated version and run it.
> >
> > The same could be said for a service like cups.  If you update cups, all
> > you have to do is restart the service.  It will stop the old service
> > then load up the new service that was just installed.  Just a simple
> > "/etc/init.d/cupsd restart" will work just fine.
> >
> > If you upgrade something kde, say kdelibs or some other kde base
> > package, then all you need to do is log out of KDE and log back in
> > again.  Sort of the same with updating xorg, logout, go to a console and
> > restart xdm or whatever you use to start X.  I usually use the ctrl alt
> > backspace key but restarting the service is better, or so some have said
> > anyway.
> >
> > Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a
> > technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new
> > kernel.
> >
> > Hope that helps a little.
> >
> > Dale
> >
> > :-)  :-)
> 
> I absolutely concur with Alan and Dale, I just want to warn a bit about
> complex X11-environments like gnome or kde. If you logout and login
> again, it is NOT secure, that all gnome/kde/qt apps have been closed.
> There are services (gconf, kded, pulse, etc) that take a time to quit,
> or sometimes just don't :(
> 
> Then, when an app was linked against a symlink, and that left-over-app
> too, the dynamic loader may not load a newly installed library, but
> reuses the one in memory (from the left-over-app). [1]
> 
> It's still valid, that no reboot is needed, but you sure can be
> unlucky :)
> 
> Bye,
> Daniel
> 
> 
> [1] don't take this info for granted, I'm no expert in this - just what
> I understood from reading...
> 

/etc/init.d/xdm stop
killall -9 X
/etc/init.d/xdm zap
/etc/init.d/xdm start

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 15:16:01 Dale wrote:
>   
>> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a 
>> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new 
>> kernel. 
>>
>>     
>
> And these days, not even then :-)
>
> [it requires some voodoo but is certainly possible]
>
> [[and I don't mean build and install a new kernel, I really do mean loa ti 
> into memory and run it, dispensing with the old one]]
>
>   

I have read about that but never read something from someone who has 
actually done it.  I have always been curious as to how that would work, 
in reality not just theory.

I have also wondered why a person would go to all that trouble.  
Wouldn't all the services have to be restarted anyway?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Mike Edenfield]

On 12/11/2009 9:38 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mickaël Bucas wrote:

>> From the process name, you can deduce the service and restart it.
>> I've never needed a reboot for this kind of problem.
>> You may have to switch to run level 1 to restart some important
>> services like udev.

> Actually, you can kill udev and restart it. Kill the process and then
> run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.

Yeah, or you could, you know, just reboot.

Frankly I have never figured out the irrational fear Linux people have 
about rebooting their machines after a big upgrade.  It takes my laptop 
way less time to shutdown and restart than it does for me to manually 
stop and restart everything that just got updated, and I can go grab a 
soda in the meantime.

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 11 December 2009 17:07:17 Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Friday 11 December 2009 15:16:01 Dale wrote:
> >> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a
> >> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new
> >> kernel.
> >
> > And these days, not even then :-)
> >
> > [it requires some voodoo but is certainly possible]
> >
> > [[and I don't mean build and install a new kernel, I really do mean loa
> > ti into memory and run it, dispensing with the old one]]
> 
> I have read about that but never read something from someone who has
> actually done it.  I have always been curious as to how that would work,
> in reality not just theory.

kexec and CONFIG_RELOCATABLE

> I have also wondered why a person would go to all that trouble.
> Wouldn't all the services have to be restarted anyway?

Nope. userspace ABI is stable so services just carry on as normal once he new 
kernel comes up. You don't need to restart SeaMonkey if you restart a local 
apache on your machine - same thing


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 11 December 2009 18:33:49 Mike Edenfield wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 9:38 AM, Dale wrote:
> > Mickaël Bucas wrote:
> >> From the process name, you can deduce the service and restart it.
> >> I've never needed a reboot for this kind of problem.
> >> You may have to switch to run level 1 to restart some important
> >> services like udev.
> >
> > Actually, you can kill udev and restart it. Kill the process and then
> > run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.
> 
> Yeah, or you could, you know, just reboot.
> 
> Frankly I have never figured out the irrational fear Linux people have
> about rebooting their machines after a big upgrade.  It takes my laptop
> way less time to shutdown and restart than it does for me to manually
> stop and restart everything that just got updated, and I can go grab a
> soda in the meantime.

That's a laptop. 

Do you have an SLA with customers where you guarantee your laptop will be up 
99.999%? My database and DNS servers do, and just in case you were asking, 
those 5 nines INCLUDES scheduled downtime. Unlike some other machines around 
in the company like, gee, I dunno, the Windows machines hosting the Active 
Directory, maybe?

For some obscure perverse reason akin to grey elephants in the living room, 
those have 20 minutes downtime every single Friday. If I did that with my *nix
boxes, I can pretty much kiss my plans for Christmas Bonus goodbye.

Now do you understand why my refusal to reboot my machines willy-nilly is 
entirely rational? It's because they are not my laptop.


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

[gentoo-user] Re: What magic does portage use?

[»Q«]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:38:02 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mickaël Bucas wrote:
> > 2009/12/11 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
> >   
> >> Unix works the way it does precisely so you *don't* require a
> >> reboot to use new libraries. They are already there and fully
> >> installed and fully operational. You just have to start using them
> >> - this may require restarting the relevant app that uses them and
> >> perhaps ldconfig.
> >
> > To find out which files have been replaced, you can use the
> > following command : lsof | grep DEL
> > This will give you all files that have been deleted since they have
> > been loaded by the process.
> > >From the process name, you can deduce the service and restart it.
> > I've never needed a reboot for this kind of problem.
> > You may have to switch to run level 1 to restart some important
> > services like udev. 
> 
> Actually, you can kill udev and restart it.  Kill the process and
> then run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.

If you're restarting services yourself instead of switching runlevels
to get them all at once, you can still use the initscripts.

# /etc/init.d/udev restart

-- 
»Q«
     Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 18:33:49 Mike Edenfield wrote:
>   
>> On 12/11/2009 9:38 AM, Dale wrote:
>>     
>>> Mickaël Bucas wrote:
>>>       
>>>> From the process name, you can deduce the service and restart it.
>>>> I've never needed a reboot for this kind of problem.
>>>> You may have to switch to run level 1 to restart some important
>>>> services like udev.
>>>>         
>>> Actually, you can kill udev and restart it. Kill the process and then
>>> run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.
>>>       
>> Yeah, or you could, you know, just reboot.
>>
>> Frankly I have never figured out the irrational fear Linux people have
>> about rebooting their machines after a big upgrade.  It takes my laptop
>> way less time to shutdown and restart than it does for me to manually
>> stop and restart everything that just got updated, and I can go grab a
>> soda in the meantime.
>>     
>
> That's a laptop. 
>
> Do you have an SLA with customers where you guarantee your laptop will be up 
> 99.999%? My database and DNS servers do, and just in case you were asking, 
> those 5 nines INCLUDES scheduled downtime. Unlike some other machines around 
> in the company like, gee, I dunno, the Windows machines hosting the Active 
> Directory, maybe?
>
> For some obscure perverse reason akin to grey elephants in the living room, 
> those have 20 minutes downtime every single Friday. If I did that with my *nix
> boxes, I can pretty much kiss my plans for Christmas Bonus goodbye.
>
> Now do you understand why my refusal to reboot my machines willy-nilly is 
> entirely rational? It's because they are not my laptop.
>
>   

That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not 
rebooted to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.  I only 
rebooted then because hurricane Katrina knocked out my lights for about 
26 hours.  My little generator also bit the dust.  It had a nice hole in 
the side of the motor and a really nasty smell. 

There are a lot of computers that can't be rebooted easily.  Some are 
run remotely too.  Some like yours just have to run 24/7 which is one 
thing *nix is good at.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

»Q« wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:38:02 -0600
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> Mickaël Bucas wrote:
>>     
>>> 2009/12/11 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> Unix works the way it does precisely so you *don't* require a
>>>> reboot to use new libraries. They are already there and fully
>>>> installed and fully operational. You just have to start using them
>>>> - this may require restarting the relevant app that uses them and
>>>> perhaps ldconfig.
>>>>         
>>> To find out which files have been replaced, you can use the
>>> following command : lsof | grep DEL
>>> This will give you all files that have been deleted since they have
>>> been loaded by the process.
>>> >From the process name, you can deduce the service and restart it.
>>> I've never needed a reboot for this kind of problem.
>>> You may have to switch to run level 1 to restart some important
>>> services like udev. 
>>>       
>> Actually, you can kill udev and restart it.  Kill the process and
>> then run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.
>>     
>
> If you're restarting services yourself instead of switching runlevels
> to get them all at once, you can still use the initscripts.
>
> # /etc/init.d/udev restart
>
>   

That doesn't work in baselayout 1 tho.  If I switch to single user, 
udevd is still running.  The only way to stop it is to kill it. 

root@smoker / # /etc/init.d/udev start
 * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2!
 * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!.
root@smoker / #


Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 17:07:17 Dale wrote:
>   
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>     
>>> On Friday 11 December 2009 15:16:01 Dale wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a
>>>> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new
>>>> kernel.
>>>>         
>>> And these days, not even then :-)
>>>
>>> [it requires some voodoo but is certainly possible]
>>>
>>> [[and I don't mean build and install a new kernel, I really do mean loa
>>> ti into memory and run it, dispensing with the old one]]
>>>       
>> I have read about that but never read something from someone who has
>> actually done it.  I have always been curious as to how that would work,
>> in reality not just theory.
>>     
>
> kexec and CONFIG_RELOCATABLE
>
>   
>> I have also wondered why a person would go to all that trouble.
>> Wouldn't all the services have to be restarted anyway?
>>     
>
> Nope. userspace ABI is stable so services just carry on as normal once he new 
> kernel comes up. You don't need to restart SeaMonkey if you restart a local 
> apache on your machine - same thing
>
>   

That would be cool of you had a system that just couldn't be rebooted.  
Is there such a thing tho?  What would be the reason a machine just 
could not be rebooted?  I guess one would be if the puter was on planet 
Mars maybe?  Is that how NASA does it?  lol  Could you imagine getting a 
blue screen of death on a computer that is on Mars?  O_O

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 11 December 2009 20:54:46 Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:

> > Now do you understand why my refusal to reboot my machines willy-nilly is
> > entirely rational? It's because they are not my laptop.
> 
> That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not
> rebooted to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.  I only
> rebooted then because hurricane Katrina knocked out my lights for about
> 26 hours.  My little generator also bit the dust.  It had a nice hole in
> the side of the motor and a really nasty smell.
> 
> There are a lot of computers that can't be rebooted easily.  Some are
> run remotely too.  Some like yours just have to run 24/7 which is one
> thing *nix is good at.

Some numbers :-)

I have three auth name servers. I have customers who get mighty upset when 
they blip. Hence, I need to provide guarantees like this:

These two are in-country in the data centres we control: 
$ uptime
 9:07PM  up 65 days
$ uptime
 9:07PM  up 994 days

This one is in New York, where I definitely have no control at all:
$ uptime
 9:07PM  up 464 days


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 11 December 2009 21:00:49 Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Friday 11 December 2009 17:07:17 Dale wrote:

> >> I have also wondered why a person would go to all that trouble.
> >> Wouldn't all the services have to be restarted anyway?
> >
> > Nope. userspace ABI is stable so services just carry on as normal once he
> > new kernel comes up. You don't need to restart SeaMonkey if you restart a
> > local apache on your machine - same thing
> 
> That would be cool of you had a system that just couldn't be rebooted.
> Is there such a thing tho?  What would be the reason a machine just
> could not be rebooted?  I guess one would be if the puter was on planet
> Mars maybe?  Is that how NASA does it?  lol  Could you imagine getting a
> blue screen of death on a computer that is on Mars?  O_O

IBM mainframes many years ago could be rebooted. I mean rebooting was 
physically not supported; there wasn't even an on/off switch. There was a 
guillotine blade around the incoming mains feed attached to an explosive bolt 
and only supposed to be activated by the building's Fireman's Switch :-)

Mars probes can be rebooted, but the underlying BIOS-type code cannot, and it 
has all kinds of fail-safe routines built in, if code doesn't work it reverts 
back to the last known good version. Much like today's smartphones which is 
the prime reason why it's normally insanely hard to permanently brick them.

But all that really does is move the "you can't ever halt this code" section 
one level lower

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Kyle Adams]

On 12/11/09 11:00, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On Friday 11 December 2009 17:07:17 Dale wrote:
>>  
>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Friday 11 December 2009 15:16:01 Dale wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a
>>>>> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new
>>>>> kernel.
>>>>>         
>>>> And these days, not even then :-)
>>>>
>>>> [it requires some voodoo but is certainly possible]
>>>>
>>>> [[and I don't mean build and install a new kernel, I really do mean
>>>> loa
>>>> ti into memory and run it, dispensing with the old one]]
>>>>       
>>> I have read about that but never read something from someone who has
>>> actually done it.  I have always been curious as to how that would
>>> work,
>>> in reality not just theory.
>>>     
>>
>> kexec and CONFIG_RELOCATABLE
>>
>>  
>>> I have also wondered why a person would go to all that trouble.
>>> Wouldn't all the services have to be restarted anyway?
>>>     
>>
>> Nope. userspace ABI is stable so services just carry on as normal
>> once he new kernel comes up. You don't need to restart SeaMonkey if
>> you restart a local apache on your machine - same thing
>>
>>   
>
> That would be cool of you had a system that just couldn't be
> rebooted.  Is there such a thing tho?  What would be the reason a
> machine just could not be rebooted?  I guess one would be if the puter
> was on planet Mars maybe?  Is that how NASA does it?  lol  Could you
> imagine getting a blue screen of death on a computer that is on Mars? 
> O_O
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
The closest thing that I have used to not rebooting my machine is kexec,
it completely unloads the current running kernel and then loading the
new kernel in it's place.

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Friday 11 December 2009 21:00:49 Dale wrote:
>   
>> That would be cool of you had a system that just couldn't be rebooted.
>> Is there such a thing tho?  What would be the reason a machine just
>> could not be rebooted?  I guess one would be if the puter was on planet
>> Mars maybe?  Is that how NASA does it?  lol  Could you imagine getting a
>> blue screen of death on a computer that is on Mars?  O_O
>>     
>
> IBM mainframes many years ago could be rebooted. I mean rebooting was 
> physically not supported; there wasn't even an on/off switch. There was a 
> guillotine blade around the incoming mains feed attached to an explosive bolt 
> and only supposed to be activated by the building's Fireman's Switch :-)
>
> Mars probes can be rebooted, but the underlying BIOS-type code cannot, and it 
> has all kinds of fail-safe routines built in, if code doesn't work it reverts 
> back to the last known good version. Much like today's smartphones which is 
> the prime reason why it's normally insanely hard to permanently brick them.
>
> But all that really does is move the "you can't ever halt this code" section 
> one level lower
>   

One reason I mentioned the Mars thing, I recall them having a puter on 
Mars or something that had a hiccup and they thought they had lost it.  
Somehow it just popped itself back up tho.  I guess it was trying to 
find some code that did work and finally did.  I remember them saying 
they tried to upload something to fix a error then it went all wacky on 
them.  It amazes me tho how long those puters they send to Pluto and 
such can last.  It also seems that something always goes wrong too.  I 
remember the Pluto thing had a antenna that didn't open up all the way.  
It wasn't able to send as much data as they wanted but they worked 
around it.

I have no idea how those things can work in the environment they are in 
either.  It does help me to understand how my old rig here hangs in 
there tho.  Six years old and still kicken.  I blow the dust out and no 
deadly cosmic rays either. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[pk]

Dale wrote:

> One reason I mentioned the Mars thing, I recall them having a puter on
> Mars or something that had a hiccup and they thought they had lost it. 
> Somehow it just popped itself back up tho.  I guess it was trying to
> find some code that did work and finally did.  I remember them saying

I'm sure that was just your friendly neighbourhood martian that rebooted
the 'puter...

Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Willie Wong]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54:46PM -0600, Penguin Lover Dale squawked:
> That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not rebooted 
> to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.  

Ahem! While we are busy comparing wang sizes, read my sig please. 

That is the server formerly known as my desktop.  

Cheers, 

W

-- 
It's one o them musics with little sticky prongs all over it
so it can cling to the inside of your head for days.
   ~S
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 1099 days, 23:29

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

pk wrote:
> Dale wrote:
>
>   
>> One reason I mentioned the Mars thing, I recall them having a puter on
>> Mars or something that had a hiccup and they thought they had lost it. 
>> Somehow it just popped itself back up tho.  I guess it was trying to
>> find some code that did work and finally did.  I remember them saying
>>     
>
> I'm sure that was just your friendly neighbourhood martian that rebooted
> the 'puter...
>
> Sorry, couldn't resist! :-)
>
> Best regards
>
> Peter K
>
>   

Hey, they have geeks too !!  Yeppie !!

I couldn't resist either.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Willie Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54:46PM -0600, Penguin Lover Dale squawked:
> > That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not rebooted
> > to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.
> 
> Ahem! While we are busy comparing wang sizes, read my sig please.
> 
> That is the server formerly known as my desktop.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> W
> 

you really love to waste electricity for nothing, do you?

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Willie Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54:46PM -0600, Penguin Lover Dale squawked:
>   
>> That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not rebooted 
>> to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.  
>>     
>
> Ahem! While we are busy comparing wang sizes, read my sig please. 
>
> That is the server formerly known as my desktop.  
>
> Cheers, 
>
> W
>
>   

I have noticed that before.  There is someone that has like four or five 
years on here somewhere.  Maybe it was the forums.  Anyway, we have to 
reboot eventually.  The power company forced me to shut down.  Of 
course, they have been doing a lot better job trimming the trees since 
then.  I got big piles of mulch to prove it too.  ;-)  We also haven't 
had a hurricane again either.  That helps a little. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Dale wrote:
> Willie Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54:46PM -0600, Penguin Lover Dale squawked:
> >> That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not
> >> rebooted to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.
> >
> > Ahem! While we are busy comparing wang sizes, read my sig please.
> >
> > That is the server formerly known as my desktop.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > W
> 
> I have noticed that before.  There is someone that has like four or five
> years on here somewhere.  Maybe it was the forums.  Anyway, we have to
> reboot eventually.  The power company forced me to shut down.  Of
> course, they have been doing a lot better job trimming the trees since
> then.  I got big piles of mulch to prove it too.  ;-)  We also haven't
> had a hurricane again either.  That helps a little.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

and what is the advantage? Why do you keep your computer running, wasting 
energy? Is there any good reason? 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Dale wrote:
>   
>> Willie Wong wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54:46PM -0600, Penguin Lover Dale squawked:
>>>       
>>>> That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not
>>>> rebooted to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.
>>>>         
>>> Ahem! While we are busy comparing wang sizes, read my sig please.
>>>
>>> That is the server formerly known as my desktop.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> W
>>>       
>> I have noticed that before.  There is someone that has like four or five
>> years on here somewhere.  Maybe it was the forums.  Anyway, we have to
>> reboot eventually.  The power company forced me to shut down.  Of
>> course, they have been doing a lot better job trimming the trees since
>> then.  I got big piles of mulch to prove it too.  ;-)  We also haven't
>> had a hurricane again either.  That helps a little.
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>
>>     
>
> and what is the advantage? Why do you keep your computer running, wasting 
> energy? Is there any good reason? 
>
>   

Well, in the winter time, I run folding and it adds a little extra heat 
to my room.  In the summer time I don't run folding but I do keep it on 
unless I am going to be gone all day or something like that.  I'm on the 
puter a lot so really no need to cut it off. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Dale wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Dale wrote:
> >> Willie Wong wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 12:54:46PM -0600, Penguin Lover Dale squawked:
> >>>> That is certainly one good example.  My little ol desktop is not
> >>>> rebooted to much.  I once went 242 days without a reboot.
> >>>
> >>> Ahem! While we are busy comparing wang sizes, read my sig please.
> >>>
> >>> That is the server formerly known as my desktop.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> W
> >>
> >> I have noticed that before.  There is someone that has like four or five
> >> years on here somewhere.  Maybe it was the forums.  Anyway, we have to
> >> reboot eventually.  The power company forced me to shut down.  Of
> >> course, they have been doing a lot better job trimming the trees since
> >> then.  I got big piles of mulch to prove it too.  ;-)  We also haven't
> >> had a hurricane again either.  That helps a little.
> >>
> >> Dale
> >>
> >> :-)  :-)
> >
> > and what is the advantage? Why do you keep your computer running, wasting
> > energy? Is there any good reason?
> 
> Well, in the winter time, I run folding and it adds a little extra heat
> to my room.  

isolation is a lot cheaper on the long run.

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Dale wrote:
>   
>> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>     
>>> On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Dale wrote:
>>>       
>>>       
>> Well, in the winter time, I run folding and it adds a little extra heat
>> to my room.  
>>     
>
> isolation is a lot cheaper on the long run.
>   

I have to run the heater whether the puter is on or not.  It just means 
the heater doesn't have to run as much since the puter takes up a little 
bit of the slack.  That said, my puter doesn't pull a whole lot anyway.  
I used to run folding year round. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Willie Wong]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:32:58AM +0100, Penguin Lover Volker Armin Hemmann squawked:
> and what is the advantage? Why do you keep your computer running, wasting 
> energy? Is there any good reason? 

I travel a lot. It is convenient to have a server to serve my e-mail
and personal files. There are certain (financial/identification/etc.)
documents that I would prefer not store on someone else's server. 

And considering the intrusive border checks now that US is
implementing, I would also prefer not to have those files on my laptop
or on a thumbdrive. 

Besides, it also is a in-facing file/print server for the family LAN,
so not having to keep turning it off and on is rather convenient. 

You may disagree, but considering that the box is almost 10 years old
and doesn't actually use all that much power idling, for the moment
being I think it is acceptable. 

Cheers, 

W

-- 
REMEMBER: "Stressed" spelled backward is "desserts"
Sortir en Pantoufles: up 1100 days, 13:03

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Willie Wong wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:32:58AM +0100, Penguin Lover Volker Armin Hemmann squawked:
>   
>> and what is the advantage? Why do you keep your computer running, wasting 
>> energy? Is there any good reason? 
>>     
>
> I travel a lot. It is convenient to have a server to serve my e-mail
> and personal files. There are certain (financial/identification/etc.)
> documents that I would prefer not store on someone else's server. 
>
> And considering the intrusive border checks now that US is
> implementing, I would also prefer not to have those files on my laptop
> or on a thumbdrive. 
>
> Besides, it also is a in-facing file/print server for the family LAN,
> so not having to keep turning it off and on is rather convenient. 
>
> You may disagree, but considering that the box is almost 10 years old
> and doesn't actually use all that much power idling, for the moment
> being I think it is acceptable. 
>
> Cheers, 
>
> W
>
>   

And some would also argue that cycling power on and off is actually bad 
for the rig as well.  Keeping things at a constant temp is better than 
fluctuating temps.  The old expanding and contracting of material 
argument.  Sort of strange that computers that run a lot last a loooong 
time.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 12 Dezember 2009, Dale wrote:
> Willie Wong wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 06:32:58AM +0100, Penguin Lover Volker Armin 
Hemmann squawked:
> >> and what is the advantage? Why do you keep your computer running,
> >> wasting energy? Is there any good reason?
> >
> > I travel a lot. It is convenient to have a server to serve my e-mail
> > and personal files. There are certain (financial/identification/etc.)
> > documents that I would prefer not store on someone else's server.
> >
> > And considering the intrusive border checks now that US is
> > implementing, I would also prefer not to have those files on my laptop
> > or on a thumbdrive.
> >
> > Besides, it also is a in-facing file/print server for the family LAN,
> > so not having to keep turning it off and on is rather convenient.
> >
> > You may disagree, but considering that the box is almost 10 years old
> > and doesn't actually use all that much power idling, for the moment
> > being I think it is acceptable.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > W
> 
> And some would also argue that cycling power on and off is actually bad
> for the rig as well.  Keeping things at a constant temp is better than
> fluctuating temps.  The old expanding and contracting of material
> argument.  Sort of strange that computers that run a lot last a loooong
> time.
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 

except that is a myth and harddisk vendors say that modern desktop harddisks 
are not built for 24/7 usage.

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Marcus Wanner]

On 12/12/2009 2:42 PM, Dale wrote:
> And some would also argue that cycling power on and off is actually 
> bad for the rig as well.  Keeping things at a constant temp is better 
> than fluctuating temps.  The old expanding and contracting of material 
> argument.  Sort of strange that computers that run a lot last a 
> loooong time.
I think that is more of a psychological thing than a hardware 
thing...basically if a computer is already there and ready to be used, 
people don't think about getting a new one. Besides, what kind of 
failure would be caused by expanding and contracting anyway? In my 
experience, old computers don't really break, they just become obsolete...

Marcus

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 13 Dezember 2009, Marcus Wanner wrote:
> On 12/12/2009 2:42 PM, Dale wrote:
> > And some would also argue that cycling power on and off is actually
> > bad for the rig as well.  Keeping things at a constant temp is better
> > than fluctuating temps.  The old expanding and contracting of material
> > argument.  Sort of strange that computers that run a lot last a
> > loooong time.
> 
> I think that is more of a psychological thing than a hardware
> thing...basically if a computer is already there and ready to be used,
> people don't think about getting a new one. Besides, what kind of
> failure would be caused by expanding and contracting anyway? In my
> experience, old computers don't really break, they just become obsolete...
> 
> Marcus
> 

computers break. The caps age tremendously. Especially heat makes them die 
soon. So if you want to use your computer over a long period of time you shut 
it off if you don't need it in the next couple of hours.

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Keith Dart]

=== On Sat, 12/12, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: ===
> except that is a myth and harddisk vendors say that modern desktop
> harddisks are not built for 24/7 usage.

===

Right. That's why I always buy high-end server disks. It's worth it if
you plan to use your system for a long time.


-- Keith Dart

-- 

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Keith Dart <keith@dartworks.biz>
   public key: ID: 19017044
   <http://www.dartworks.biz/>
   =====================================================================

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Keith Dart wrote:
> === On Sat, 12/12, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: ===
>   
>> except that is a myth and harddisk vendors say that modern desktop
>> harddisks are not built for 24/7 usage.
>>     
>
> ===
>
> Right. That's why I always buy high-end server disks. It's worth it if
> you plan to use your system for a long time.
>
>
> -- Keith Dart
>
>   
Sort of funny in a way.  My rig is about 6 years old.  So far, the fans 
is the only thing that i have had trouble with.  Bearings fail after a 
while.  I did have a power supply to go out but that was because the fan 
stopped working. 

Your mileage may vary tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Saturday 12 December 2009 21:42:13 Dale wrote:
> And some would also argue that cycling power on and off is actually bad 
> for the rig as well.  Keeping things at a constant temp is better than 
> fluctuating temps.  The old expanding and contracting of material 
> argument.  Sort of strange that computers that run a lot last a loooong 
> time.
> 

This is perfectly true and a well-proven fact. Thermal recycling is not good 
for electronics. It is good for your electricity bill though....

Tektronix did some proper lab tests many many years ago on their top-of-the-
line oscilloscopes. They found that the calibration interval could be tripled 
if the rig was never switched off (just turn down the brightness overnight)
-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 12 December 2009 21:42:13 Dale wrote:
>   
>> And some would also argue that cycling power on and off is actually bad 
>> for the rig as well.  Keeping things at a constant temp is better than 
>> fluctuating temps.  The old expanding and contracting of material 
>> argument.  Sort of strange that computers that run a lot last a loooong 
>> time.
>>
>>     
>
> This is perfectly true and a well-proven fact. Thermal recycling is not good 
> for electronics. It is good for your electricity bill though....
>
> Tektronix did some proper lab tests many many years ago on their top-of-the-
> line oscilloscopes. They found that the calibration interval could be tripled 
> if the rig was never switched off (just turn down the brightness overnight)
>   

I know I have read that several times but I didn't know someone actually 
tested the thing.  I know my BBQ grill would be better off if I could 
run it all the time.  You have to understand, I had this little table 
top grill that was stainless steel.  I have had that thing for ages and 
I loved it.  I could cook some mean steaks and burgers on it.  Anyway, 
it didn't rust through but it just flaked off on the bottom.  It is the 
heating and cooling cycles that does this.  I had the same thing happen 
to a old wood burning heater we had ages ago.  It just got old and the 
metal was thin even tho it wasn't rusted or anything.  It sure was 
lighter going out of the house than it was coming in.  It took six to 
get it in but only two to take it out. 

Isn't there metal in CPUs, memory chips and stuff?  I know there is 
silicone but I assume there is metal like copper or something in there 
too.  They can't like heat cycles either.  They are so small nowadays.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 13 Dezember 2009, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 12 December 2009 21:42:13 Dale wrote:
> > And some would also argue that cycling power on and off is actually bad
> > for the rig as well.  Keeping things at a constant temp is better than
> > fluctuating temps.  The old expanding and contracting of material
> > argument.  Sort of strange that computers that run a lot last a loooong
> > time.
> 
> This is perfectly true and a well-proven fact. Thermal recycling is not
>  good for electronics. It is good for your electricity bill though....

no, it is a myth.

Fanbearing are pretty sensitive.
Harddisk bearings are not made for 24/7 anymore.
Caps age under load. Even a small increase in heat halfs the expected 
halftime. 

Let your rig run all the time and you increase the risk of hardware failure a 
lot.

> 
> Tektronix did some proper lab tests many many years ago on their
>  top-of-the- line oscilloscopes. They found that the calibration interval
>  could be tripled if the rig was never switched off (just turn down the
>  brightness overnight)
> 

and how does sensitve measuring equipment compare to not-very-sensitive-but-
fast-aging-and-consisting-of-cheap-crap-computers?

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Keith Dart]

=== On Sat, 12/12, Dale wrote: ===
> Your mileage may vary tho.

===

I have an IBM hard disk (IBM DMVS09V) that has been running for 9 years
non-stop.

Device: IBM      DMVS09V          Version: 0100
Serial number:       F801275875
SMART Health Status: OK
Manufactured in week 01 of year 1999

Of course, at 9 Gigs it has become obsolete long before it fails.


-- Keith Dart

-- 

-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
   Keith Dart <keith@dartworks.biz>
   public key: ID: 19017044
   <http://www.dartworks.biz/>
   =====================================================================

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Keith Dart wrote:
> === On Sat, 12/12, Dale wrote: ===
>   
>> Your mileage may vary tho.
>>     
>
> ===
>
> I have an IBM hard disk (IBM DMVS09V) that has been running for 9 years
> non-stop.
>
> Device: IBM      DMVS09V          Version: 0100
> Serial number:       F801275875
> SMART Health Status: OK
> Manufactured in week 01 of year 1999
>
> Of course, at 9 Gigs it has become obsolete long before it fails.
>
>
> -- Keith Dart
>
>   

Honestly, I worry about lightening hitting my puter and dust build-up 
more than anything else.  I do run pretty cool tho.  Big fans and lots 
of heat sinks. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Re: What magic does portage use?

[»Q«]

On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:57:30 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:38:02 -0600
> > Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> >      
> >> Actually, you can kill udev and restart it.  Kill the process and
> >> then run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.
> >>     
> >
> > If you're restarting services yourself instead of switching
> > runlevels to get them all at once, you can still use the
> > initscripts.
> >
> > # /etc/init.d/udev restart 
> 
> That doesn't work in baselayout 1 tho.  If I switch to single user, 
> udevd is still running.  The only way to stop it is to kill it. 
> 
> root@smoker / # /etc/init.d/udev start
>  * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2!
>  * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!.
> root@smoker / #

That looks like a bug.  Heh, it would be nice if the initscripts worked
with the current stable version of baselayout.

-- 
»Q«
     Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What magic does portage use?

[Sebastian Beßler]

Am 13.12.2009 23:19, schrieb »Q«:

> That looks like a bug.  Heh, it would be nice if the initscripts worked
> with the current stable version of baselayout.


This is no bug, it is just how baselayout 1 and 2 are created. You don't
need a initscript to start udev with baselayout 1 as it is started
automaticaly. This changed with baselayout 2 and thats why it is there.

Greetings

Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

»Q« wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:57:30 -0600
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> »Q« wrote:
>>     
>>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 08:38:02 -0600
>>> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>      
>>>       
>>>> Actually, you can kill udev and restart it.  Kill the process and
>>>> then run "/sbin/udevd --daemon" and it will be started again.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> If you're restarting services yourself instead of switching
>>> runlevels to get them all at once, you can still use the
>>> initscripts.
>>>
>>> # /etc/init.d/udev restart 
>>>       
>> That doesn't work in baselayout 1 tho.  If I switch to single user, 
>> udevd is still running.  The only way to stop it is to kill it. 
>>
>> root@smoker / # /etc/init.d/udev start
>>  * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2!
>>  * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!.
>> root@smoker / #
>>     
>
> That looks like a bug.  Heh, it would be nice if the initscripts worked
> with the current stable version of baselayout.
>   

The devs intended for it not to work with baselayout 1 so they know 
this.  I think it is in a Gentoo doc somewhere.  I was trying to figure 
out how udev was starting when the script was not in any runlevel and 
was stopped, while udev had a process running.  I ran up on the doc when 
trying to figure this mess out. 

So, for baselayout 2, use the script.  For baselayout 1, just kill the 
process and restart with udevd --daemon. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What magic does portage use?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 16:19:15 -0600, »Q« wrote:

> > root@smoker / # /etc/init.d/udev start
> >  * The udev init-script is written for baselayout-2!
> >  * Please do not use it with baselayout-1!.
> > root@smoker / #  
> 
> That looks like a bug.  Heh, it would be nice if the initscripts worked
> with the current stable version of baselayout.

It's not a bug that a baselayout-2 script doesn't work with baselayout-1,
the two are different and have their own ways of starting udev.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If you smoke after sex, you're doing it too fast.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Daniel Troeder]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2222 bytes --]

On 12/11/2009 08:00 PM, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On Friday 11 December 2009 17:07:17 Dale wrote:
>>  
>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>    
>>>> On Friday 11 December 2009 15:16:01 Dale wrote:
>>>>      
>>>>> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a
>>>>> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new
>>>>> kernel.
>>>>>         
>>>> And these days, not even then :-)
>>>>
>>>> [it requires some voodoo but is certainly possible]
>>>>
>>>> [[and I don't mean build and install a new kernel, I really do mean loa
>>>> ti into memory and run it, dispensing with the old one]]
>>>>       
>>> I have read about that but never read something from someone who has
>>> actually done it.  I have always been curious as to how that would work,
>>> in reality not just theory.
>>>     
>>
>> kexec and CONFIG_RELOCATABLE
>>
>>  
>>> I have also wondered why a person would go to all that trouble.
>>> Wouldn't all the services have to be restarted anyway?
>>>     
>>
>> Nope. userspace ABI is stable so services just carry on as normal once
>> he new kernel comes up. You don't need to restart SeaMonkey if you
>> restart a local apache on your machine - same thing
>>
>>   
> 
> That would be cool of you had a system that just couldn't be rebooted. 
> Is there such a thing tho?  What would be the reason a machine just
> could not be rebooted?  I guess one would be if the puter was on planet
> Mars maybe?  Is that how NASA does it?  lol  Could you imagine getting a
> blue screen of death on a computer that is on Mars?  O_O
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-)
A real world scenario would be a bank server doing transactions. Those
big irons do never ever get shut down.
(But they also don't ever get really updated ;)

Did you know, that they still use cobol-code from decades ago. The code
has to interact with newer systems, but the existing code is not allowed
to be altered, they just run it inside hugh java application servers on
their main frames :D

Bye,
Daniel

-- 
use PGP key @ http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de/pks/lookup?search=0xBB9D4887&op=get
# gpg --recv-keys --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0xBB9D4887


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: What magic does portage use?

[»Q«]

On Sun, 13 Dec 2009 23:30:38 +0100
Sebastian Beßler <webmaster@darkmetatron.de> wrote:

> Am 13.12.2009 23:19, schrieb »Q«:
> 
> > That looks like a bug.  Heh, it would be nice if the initscripts
> > worked with the current stable version of baselayout.  
> 
> 
> This is no bug, it is just how baselayout 1 and 2 are created. You
> don't need a initscript to start udev with baselayout 1 as it is
> started automaticaly. This changed with baselayout 2 and thats why it
> is there.

That makes perfect sense.  Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
»Q«
     Kleeneness is next to Gödelness.

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Daniel Troeder wrote:
> On 12/11/2009 08:00 PM, Dale wrote:
>   
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>     
>>> On Friday 11 December 2009 17:07:17 Dale wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> On Friday 11 December 2009 15:16:01 Dale wrote:
>>>>>      
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Rebooting will also do all of this but it is not needed.  From a
>>>>>> technical stand point, the only time you must reboot is to load a new
>>>>>> kernel.
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> And these days, not even then :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> [it requires some voodoo but is certainly possible]
>>>>>
>>>>> [[and I don't mean build and install a new kernel, I really do mean loa
>>>>> ti into memory and run it, dispensing with the old one]]
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> I have read about that but never read something from someone who has
>>>> actually done it.  I have always been curious as to how that would work,
>>>> in reality not just theory.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> kexec and CONFIG_RELOCATABLE
>>>
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> I have also wondered why a person would go to all that trouble.
>>>> Wouldn't all the services have to be restarted anyway?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> Nope. userspace ABI is stable so services just carry on as normal once
>>> he new kernel comes up. You don't need to restart SeaMonkey if you
>>> restart a local apache on your machine - same thing
>>>
>>>   
>>>       
>> That would be cool of you had a system that just couldn't be rebooted. 
>> Is there such a thing tho?  What would be the reason a machine just
>> could not be rebooted?  I guess one would be if the puter was on planet
>> Mars maybe?  Is that how NASA does it?  lol  Could you imagine getting a
>> blue screen of death on a computer that is on Mars?  O_O
>>
>> Dale
>>
>> :-)  :-)
>>     
> A real world scenario would be a bank server doing transactions. Those
> big irons do never ever get shut down.
> (But they also don't ever get really updated ;)
>
> Did you know, that they still use cobol-code from decades ago. The code
> has to interact with newer systems, but the existing code is not allowed
> to be altered, they just run it inside hugh java application servers on
> their main frames :D
>
> Bye,
> Daniel
>   

Well, I wish someone would tell my bank that.  They are down pretty 
regular "upgrading" something.  I use the term upgrading lightly here.  
It usually makes things worse but anyway.  They run windoze on their rig 
so they most likely can't help that.  ;-)

Hearing they use old code is not to surprising actually.  Look at air 
traffic control.  Every time they try to upgrade, it crashes.  I guess 
the cheapest bidder is not always the best.  o_O

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wednesday 16 December 2009 01:34:33 Dale wrote:
> > A real world scenario would be a bank server doing transactions. Those
> > big irons do never ever get shut down.
> > (But they also don't ever get really updated ;)
> >
> > Did you know, that they still use cobol-code from decades ago. The code
> > has to interact with newer systems, but the existing code is not allowed
> > to be altered, they just run it inside hugh java application servers on
> > their main frames :D
> >
> > Bye,
> > Daniel
> >   
> 
> Well, I wish someone would tell my bank that.  They are down pretty 
> regular "upgrading" something.  I use the term upgrading lightly here.  
> It usually makes things worse but anyway.  They run windoze on their rig 
> so they most likely can't help that.  ;-)

They upgrade the *front*ends*, not the real stuff at the back.

Switching a mainframe off is not a supported activity :-)

Along those lines I could tell you some funny stories about monumental cockups 
banks do to their front ends (my S.O. does banking data warehousing), but I'm 
not actually supposed to know some of that stuff so I won't :-)

> Hearing they use old code is not to surprising actually.  Look at air 
> traffic control.  Every time they try to upgrade, it crashes.  I guess 
> the cheapest bidder is not always the best.  o_O

Every such crash after an upgrade I know of is trying to run the thing on 
Windows...


-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 December 2009 01:34:33 Dale wrote:
>   
>>> A real world scenario would be a bank server doing transactions. Those
>>> big irons do never ever get shut down.
>>> (But they also don't ever get really updated ;)
>>>
>>> Did you know, that they still use cobol-code from decades ago. The code
>>> has to interact with newer systems, but the existing code is not allowed
>>> to be altered, they just run it inside hugh java application servers on
>>> their main frames :D
>>>
>>> Bye,
>>> Daniel
>>>   
>>>       
>> Well, I wish someone would tell my bank that.  They are down pretty 
>> regular "upgrading" something.  I use the term upgrading lightly here.  
>> It usually makes things worse but anyway.  They run windoze on their rig 
>> so they most likely can't help that.  ;-)
>>     
>
> They upgrade the *front*ends*, not the real stuff at the back.
>
> Switching a mainframe off is not a supported activity :-)
>
> Along those lines I could tell you some funny stories about monumental cockups 
> banks do to their front ends (my S.O. does banking data warehousing), but I'm 
> not actually supposed to know some of that stuff so I won't :-)
>
>   

I'm not sure about back end or front end but they sure make a mess of it 
at times.

>> Hearing they use old code is not to surprising actually.  Look at air 
>> traffic control.  Every time they try to upgrade, it crashes.  I guess 
>> the cheapest bidder is not always the best.  o_O
>>     
>
> Every such crash after an upgrade I know of is trying to run the thing on 
> Windows...
>
>   

Yep, I read the same thing.  Why not use a real OS?  I'm thinking BSD or 
something.  Linux would be good but I think BSD is even better suited 
for basically 100% uptime.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

[gentoo-user] Correcting some misconceptions (was: What magic does portage use?)

[Leslie Turriff]

On Wednesday 16 December 2009 16:25:43 Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wednesday 16 December 2009 01:34:33 Dale wrote:
> >>> A real world scenario would be a bank server doing transactions. Those
> >>> big irons do never ever get shut down.
> >>> (But they also don't ever get really updated ;)
> >>>
	Not true.* :-)

> >>> Did you know, that they still use cobol-code from decades ago. The code
> >>> has to interact with newer systems, but the existing code is not
> >>> allowed to be altered, they just run it inside hugh java application
> >>> servers on their main frames :D
> >>>
	Somewhat true, but inaccurate. :-)
> >>> Bye,
> >>> Daniel
> >>
> >> Well, I wish someone would tell my bank that.  They are down pretty
> >> regular "upgrading" something.  I use the term upgrading lightly here.
> >> It usually makes things worse but anyway.  They run windoze on their rig
> >> so they most likely can't help that.  ;-)
> >
> > They upgrade the *front*ends*, not the real stuff at the back.
> >
> > Switching a mainframe off is not a supported activity :-)
> >
	Again, not true.  But sometimes they run so long between IPLs the operations 
staff have to look up the procedures for doing it. :-)

> > Along those lines I could tell you some funny stories about monumental
> > cockups banks do to their front ends (my S.O. does banking data
> > warehousing), but I'm not actually supposed to know some of that stuff so
> > I won't :-)
>
> I'm not sure about back end or front end but they sure make a mess of it
> at times.
>
	Of course, not all banks use the same technology, nor do they all have the 
same level of competence. :-)

> >> Hearing they use old code is not to surprising actually.  Look at air
> >> traffic control.  Every time they try to upgrade, it crashes.  I guess
> >> the cheapest bidder is not always the best.  o_O
> >
> > Every such crash after an upgrade I know of is trying to run the thing on
> > Windows...
>
> Yep, I read the same thing.  Why not use a real OS?  I'm thinking BSD or
> something.  Linux would be good but I think BSD is even better suited
> for basically 100% uptime.
>
> Dale
>
*	This is an interesting discussion, but I feel obligated to point out that 
much of it is fantasy. :-)

	As a 30-year veteran of the IBM mainframe programming environment, I can say 
with authority that most of the enterprises that use them for 
mission-critical business applications (banking, stock-brokerage, etc.) are 
running systems that are updated frequently (sometimes daily) and are fully 
capable of being shut down and restarted (on purpose :-D ).  Yes, some of 
them are front-ended with Linux servers; mainframe systems are not well 
designed for managing dynamic web traffic, although systems that do not have 
to support very high-volume workflows can do it themselves.  The last system 
that I worked on was only shut down and restarted twice per year, because 90% 
of maintenance could be done while it was running (just like Linux), and 
because it was not a business-critical system, it was only required to be 
available 99.95% of the time. :-)

	The banking and brokerage systems that I first referred to use a more robust 
configuration than we did, which is capable of providing services 100% of the 
time, much like a Linux cluster system does.  IBM calls the 
configuration "Parallel Sysplex." Here's an excerpt of their technical 
description, from 
<http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/advantages/pso/sysover.html>:

	'This "shared data" (as opposed to "shared nothing") approach enables 
workloads to be dynamically balanced across all servers in the Parallel 
Sysplex cluster. This approach allows critical business applications to take 
advantage of the aggregate capacity of multiple servers to help ensure 
maximum system throughput and performance during peak processing periods. In 
the event of a hardware or software outage, either planned or unplanned, 
workloads can be dynamically redirected to available servers thus providing 
near continuous application availability.
	Another significant and unique advantage of using Parallel Sysplex technology 
is the ability to perform hardware and software maintenance and installations 
in a nondisruptive manner. Through data sharing and dynamic workload 
management, servers can be dynamically removed from or added to the cluster 
allowing installation and maintenance activities to be performed while the 
remaining systems continue to process work. Furthermore, by adhering to IBM's 
software and hardware coexistence policy, software and/or hardware upgrades 
can be introduced one system at a time. This capability allows customers to 
roll changes through systems at a pace that makes sense for their business. 
The ability to perform rolling hardware and software maintenance in a 
nondisruptive manner allows business to implement critical business function 
and react to rapid growth without affecting customer availability.'

	Respectfully,

Leslie

Re: [gentoo-user] Correcting some misconceptions (was: What magic does portage use?)

[Bruce Hill]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 06:56:00PM -0600, Leslie Turriff wrote:
> 	As a 30-year veteran of the IBM mainframe programming environment, I can say 
> with authority that most of the enterprises that use them for 
> mission-critical business applications (banking, stock-brokerage, etc.) are 
> running systems that are updated frequently (sometimes daily) and are fully 
> capable of being shut down and restarted (on purpose :-D ).  Yes, some of 
> them are front-ended with Linux servers; mainframe systems are not well 
> designed for managing dynamic web traffic, although systems that do not have 
> to support very high-volume workflows can do it themselves.  The last system 
> that I worked on was only shut down and restarted twice per year, because 90% 
> of maintenance could be done while it was running (just like Linux), and 
> because it was not a business-critical system, it was only required to be 
> available 99.95% of the time. :-)
> 
> 	The banking and brokerage systems that I first referred to use a more robust 
> configuration than we did, which is capable of providing services 100% of the 
> time, much like a Linux cluster system does.  IBM calls the 
> configuration "Parallel Sysplex." Here's an excerpt of their technical 
> description, from 
> <http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/advantages/pso/sysover.html>:
> 
> 	'This "shared data" (as opposed to "shared nothing") approach enables 
> workloads to be dynamically balanced across all servers in the Parallel 
> Sysplex cluster. This approach allows critical business applications to take 
> advantage of the aggregate capacity of multiple servers to help ensure 
> maximum system throughput and performance during peak processing periods. In 
> the event of a hardware or software outage, either planned or unplanned, 
> workloads can be dynamically redirected to available servers thus providing 
> near continuous application availability.
> 	Another significant and unique advantage of using Parallel Sysplex technology 
> is the ability to perform hardware and software maintenance and installations 
> in a nondisruptive manner. Through data sharing and dynamic workload 
> management, servers can be dynamically removed from or added to the cluster 
> allowing installation and maintenance activities to be performed while the 
> remaining systems continue to process work. Furthermore, by adhering to IBM's 
> software and hardware coexistence policy, software and/or hardware upgrades 
> can be introduced one system at a time. This capability allows customers to 
> roll changes through systems at a pace that makes sense for their business. 
> The ability to perform rolling hardware and software maintenance in a 
> nondisruptive manner allows business to implement critical business function 
> and react to rapid growth without affecting customer availability.'
> 
> 	Respectfully,
> 
> Leslie

Leslie,

I appreciate you addressing the previous FUD in such a professional manner.
-- 
"Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, the
lesson afterward. But properly learned, the lesson forever changes
the man."

Re: [gentoo-user] What magic does portage use?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 17 December 2009 00:25:43 Dale wrote:
> >> Hearing they use old code is not to surprising actually.  Look at air 
> >> traffic control.  Every time they try to upgrade, it crashes.  I guess 
> >> the cheapest bidder is not always the best.  o_O
> >>     
> >
> > Every such crash after an upgrade I know of is trying to run the thing
> > on  Windows...
> >
> >   
> 
> Yep, I read the same thing.  Why not use a real OS?  I'm thinking BSD or 
> something.  Linux would be good but I think BSD is even better suited 
> for basically 100% uptime.
> 

Solaris.

Those guys need thumping great big iron. Solaris excels at that.

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com