On 17Mar01:1235+0000, David L. Craig wrote:
I'm still exploring viable approaches for this methodology and am wondering if anyone in the community is doing anything already along the following lines, or not but has some thoughts about it.
Given one or two powerful platforms for doing the heavy lifting of building CRUX ports for installion on many less capable platforms such as thin clients in an enterprise, what works better for enabling the builder platform(s) to support multiple CRUX releases: virtualization, chroot, or reboot with different root filesystems? Also, is anybody clustering CRUX and, if so, how and does what you're doing scale?
Interesting articles pertaining to the trade-offs: http://www.serverschool.com/virtual-private-servers-vps/full-virtualization-... http://security-musings.blogspot.com/2015/04/whats-difference-between-virtua... https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-431852-start-0.html In the specific case of CRUX software maintenance, it seems to me attack surface/system integrity considerations are less weighty than for other usage, but overhead and setup/ teardown speeds are much more of a consideration. Outside factors such as TCO are probably not germane but scalability should be a major consideration and that of course impacts TCO. I don't think CRUX software maintenance should ever require hardware capable of virtualization; i.e., not permit chroot. It would be nice to support kexec transitions that would also facilitate transitioning between CRUX releases without needing to boot the CRUX ISO. -- <not cent from sell> May the LORD God bless you exceedingly abundantly! Dave_Craig______________________________________________ "So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe." __--from_Nightfall_by_Asimov/Silverberg_________________