From: Sam Vilain (sam_at_vilain.net)
Date: Sun 12 Dec 2004 - 09:47:38 GMT
Oliver Welter wrote:
> The alternattiv seems to be using the classic approach with hardlinking
> the files but as I see the upgrade path (for upgrading the application)
> woud be easier with the mount approach - Im thinking of setting up a
> second "base" directory where the update is made and than simply have to
> change the mounts....
Don't forget that with immulink, you can protect the "real" files, and
just keep multiple "shadows" (hardlink copies) of the files, which can
then be bind mounted into the right place.
Then, so long as you don't need to change the contents of the files
(replacing them completely is OK), then you can still use hard links.
Then even root can't corrupt the versions on the other vservers (if
that is a concern, if not the technique still works with normal hard
links).
As such, I see no major difference between what you're doing, and
situation where you hard link together files between vservers.
See http://www.paul.sladen.org/vserver/archives/200211/0227.html for a
description of the technique.
-- Sam Vilain, sam /\T vilain |><>T net, PGP key ID: 0x05B52F13 (include my PGP key ID in personal replies to avoid spam filtering) _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver