order of operations in port upgrade

[Daniel J. Luke]

The proposal also has the down-side of lengthening the amount of time when neither the old nor the new port is installed and active.

> On Oct 5, 2016, at 5:12 AM, Chris Jones <jonesc at hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The current order makes more sense to me. Only clean once the activation is successful. I also fail to see how your proposal helps with your fragmentation ?
> 
> Chris
> 
> On 05/10/16 10:09, René J.V. Bertin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Quick question: a normal (non-forced) upgrade currently does
>> 
>> 1) install (create new tarball image)
>> 2) deactivate old
>> 3) activate new
>> 4) clean ${workpath} (unless -k)
>> 
>> Would there be anything against exchanging ops 3 and 4?
>> 
>> 1) install (create new tarball image)
>> 2) deactivate old
>> 3) clean ${workpath} (unless -k)
>> 4) activate new
>> 
>> I just had a look at my workdisk in iDefrag, and free disk fragmentation is terrible ATM, at a point where I cannot even do a complete online defrag (= of unused files) due to lack of contiguous free space (yet there's over 110Gb free). I know this is less of an issue on SSDs yet I cannot help but think that free disk fragmentation ends up being a PITA everywhere. The proposed change should help keeping it in check.
>> 
>> I haven't look at how trivial it would be to implement this particular change. I think the upgrade routine already has separate paths for normal and forced operation (1 & 2 being exchanged in forced mode), right?

-- 
Daniel J. Luke