* qcow and updates
@ 2008-07-25 17:07 Bill Davidsen
2008-07-26 9:18 ` Avi Kivity
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bill Davidsen @ 2008-07-25 17:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: kvm
This question came out of a discussion of nesting (or stringing if you
like) disk images using qcow.
If I have an unpatched install image, say CentOS-5.2 (box "A" below).
and I make a copy of that with qcow and apply patches to that copy (box
"B" below), everything is just fine. But if I should make a working qcow
image from the patched version (box "C" below), which works fine
initially, what would happen if I applied patches to the "current"
version? I assume that would mess up the application version, since it's
a physical copy, but I'd like to be sure.
______________
| [A] |
| orig release |
|______________|
||
{qcow copy|
||
____________________
| [B] |
| patched to current |
|____________________|
||
{qcow copy}
||
_________________________
| [C] |
| fully config. app. svr. |
|_________________________|
I could play with union filesystem, network mounting of /var and /usr,
and other tricks, but I thought I'd check that this really is a problem,
and the current version needs a "real" copy to the app server, and then
the app server needs to be patched after that.
--
Bill Davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
"We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from
the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread* Re: qcow and updates
2008-07-25 17:07 qcow and updates Bill Davidsen
@ 2008-07-26 9:18 ` Avi Kivity
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Avi Kivity @ 2008-07-26 9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bill Davidsen; +Cc: kvm
Bill Davidsen wrote:
> This question came out of a discussion of nesting (or stringing if you
> like) disk images using qcow.
>
> If I have an unpatched install image, say CentOS-5.2 (box "A" below).
> and I make a copy of that with qcow and apply patches to that copy
> (box "B" below), everything is just fine. But if I should make a
> working qcow image from the patched version (box "C" below), which
> works fine initially, what would happen if I applied patches to the
> "current" version? I assume that would mess up the application
> version, since it's a physical copy, but I'd like to be sure.
>
> ______________
> | [A] |
> | orig release |
> |______________|
> ||
> {qcow copy|
> ||
> ____________________
> | [B] |
> | patched to current |
> |____________________|
> ||
> {qcow copy}
> ||
> _________________________
> | [C] |
> | fully config. app. svr. |
> |_________________________|
>
> I could play with union filesystem, network mounting of /var and /usr,
> and other tricks, but I thought I'd check that this really is a
> problem, and the current version needs a "real" copy to the app
> server, and then the app server needs to be patched after that.
>
Changing anything except the last image in the chain is liable to
break. In other words: once you use an image as a base for another
image, this first image must never change.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-07-26 9:18 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-07-25 17:07 qcow and updates Bill Davidsen
2008-07-26 9:18 ` Avi Kivity
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox