diff --git a/content/notes/kexec-considered-overkill.md b/content/notes/kexec-considered-overkill.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b688de0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/notes/kexec-considered-overkill.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "Kexec considered overkill"
+date: 2022-10-23T22:09:27-07:00
+replyURI: "https://community.mojeek.com/t/kexec-boot-a-new-kernel-without-power-cycling/"
+replyTitle: "Kexec: Boot a new Kernel without Power Cycling"
+replyType: "DiscussionForumPosting"
+replyAuthor: "Mike"
+replyAuthorURI: "https://community.mojeek.com/u/mike/"
+---
+
+Avoid kexec if you don't need it: it opens new vulnerabilities, and is better left disabled for most use-cases. Redundancy and failover should eliminate the need when hosting a typical service. Even without the risks, there are other reasons to reboot: updates to shared libraries, SELinux policies, and init systems often warrant one.
+
+One use-case that benefits from kexec is pubnix systems with many logged-in users. If you need to apply an unscheduled security patch while causing minimal disruption, then live-patching makes sense.
+
+With some boot optimization, I can hit 99.9% uptime even if I reboot 2-3 times per week on Fedora. With failover, these reboots should have negligible impact.