Ksplice Offers Rebootless Updates For Ubuntu Systems

sdasher writes "Ksplice has started offering Ksplice Uptrack for Ubuntu Jaunty, a free service that delivers rebootless versions of all the latest Ubuntu kernel security updates. It's currently available for both the 32 and 64-bit generic kernel, and they plan to add support for the virtual and server kernels by the end of the month, according to their FAQ. This makes Ubuntu the first OS that doesn't need to be rebooted for security updates. (We covered Ksplice's underlying technology when it was first announced a year ago.)"

Comments

Great!

[jbacon]

This could actually be really awesome if it's truly production ready. What's that? 100% uptime?! AWRIGHT!

Difference between Linux and Windows

[nmb3000]

This is something I've wondered for a while. Both Linux and Windows have the ability to modify images (executables and libraries) on the fly without rebooting, and most Linux updates do this but Windows usually doesn't. Now we're looking at not only that, but some pretty low level mucking around in the kernel, all while the machine is running.

I know partly why Microsoft doesn't normally do this for Windows, but why is it that Linux doesn't have the same problems described in that article? If you replace an executable you can restart it, sure, but what happens if you update libraries with various inter-dependencies?

Yes, rebooting is annoying, especially for important servers, but doesn't it make more sense to be 100% sure that the changes you're making aren't destabilizing the system (doubly for servers) than that few minutes of down time rebooting costs? Just wondering.

Re:Difference between Linux and Windows

[644bd346996]

Most of the people who would want to patch a system without rebooting aren't upgrading to get new features - they're applying security fixes, which seldom break binary compatibility. That makes it pretty safe to replace an in-use library. Once the update has been installed, you can restart the affected services on a schedule of your choosing, rather than have several minutes of complete downtime. I would expect that the reason this isn't attempted as often under Windows is that DLLs don't follow any system-wide rigorous versioning system like what most Linux package managers impose. This, and the presence of closed-source software, makes it much harder to do this with confidence under Windows.

Re:GPL "terms of service"?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the broadest strokes, the GPL isn't that different from a EULA. The main difference is the scope of the agreement. When you use a typical EULA'd piece of software, you have to agree only to run it under certain conditions and not to redistribute it. When you use a GPL'd piece of software, you have to agree only to redistribute it only under certain conditions. You don't have to agree to anything to run it, but there are still terms and conditions for your use of the software (if "use" encompasses redistribution and modification).

And yes, yes, the GPL isn't a contract and a click-through token of agreement isn't actually necessary. (Instead, your agreement is implicit in the act of doing something that would be copyright infringement but for the license.) But it seems reasonable enough (if maybe unnecessary) to throw a window in front of the user and say "Hey, here's your chance to read this before you break the license terms".

Re:GPL "terms of service"?

[_Sprocket_]

In the broadest strokes, the GPL isn't that different from a EULA.

In the broadest strokes, an apple isn't that much different than an orange.

load of wank

[timmarhy]

if the fix affects a service i'm currently running, you still have to restart the service, so all this is doing is perpetuating the usual stupid uptime measurment of performance, which isn't indicative of the systems avaliablity.

get back to me when you have found a way to patch my network service without dropping the current open sessions, then i'll be really impressed.