On 11/7/15 9:26 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:05:23 +0000
Rainer Weikusat <[email protected]> wrote:
Worrying about 'starting servers in parallell' only makes sense if
there's a real-world situation where this demonstrably makes a
relevant difference. And I very much doubt that --- that's just
another imaginary sugar-coating supposed to help selling systemd to
people who are not expected to understand the issue. As someone
recently wrote,
I'd like to discuss this. Now, after a year of thought, I still see no
benefit to "starting servers in parallel" except for boot time. There
are use cases where boot time is critical (99.9999% uptime, or a
television appliance), but for the vast majority of us the difference
between a 1 second boot and a 40 second boot is we get a chance to go
get a cup of coffee every day, week, month, year, whatever. And
frankly, it's been a long time since I've seen any system that takes
more than 30 seconds to boot.
Boot time better NOT be critical for high availability situations. Any
reasonable systems designer uses hot sparing & failover to achieve high
uptime. Everything had better already be booted on the failover system.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
