Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:15:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:15:35 -0400 Received: from woodyjr.wcnet.org ([63.174.200.2]:44000 "EHLO woodyjr.wcnet.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:15:24 -0400 Message-ID: <003001c10a1c$d7563e00$fe00000a@cslater> From: "C. Slater" To: In-Reply-To: <3B4C21DA.5FFCBE2@uni-mb.si> Subject: Re: Switching Kernels without Rebooting? Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:19:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > This is not a problem at all, because UNIX does not guarantee that > a process will get at least one CPU slice every X seconds. > ( read : UNIX is not a real time system ) It is not a problem when a system is isolated from all other systems, but if we do this while some program is in a tcp/ip session, like a webserver, the program will not beable to respond to an outside computer for the time while we are swaping and initilizing kernels. The tcp connection will time out on the side of the other computer then. But this is still quite managable compared to a minute or 2 for a system to totaly reboot itself. > soft-suspend "freezes" processes for several hours anyway ... Yes, so it will not be a problem at least with processes dieing because they did not get message X at time Y. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/