I think the stuff I read about crash-only said that it's normally
implemented in a hierarchy. So you try to restart little processes. If they
come back up and work correctly then nothing else is affected. If they
don't, then you crash the larger process. And so on.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 3:27 PM,
On 09/08/2016 06:08, Matt Maier wrote:
Because we're capable of building systems more complex than we can
understand. So there are always ghost states it can get into that we didn't
prepare for.
I was reading about "crash only" programming a while ago. It like using the
"turn it off and back
Matt Maier wrote:
> I was reading about "crash only" programming a while ago. It like
> using the "turn it off and back on again"approach as a part of normal
> business. Since all of your systems need to be able to recover from a
> crash anyway, why bother programming a graceful shutdown? Just
Because we're capable of building systems more complex than we can
understand. So there are always ghost states it can get into that we didn't
prepare for.
I was reading about "crash only" programming a while ago. It like using the
"turn it off and back on again"approach as a part of normal
On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 2:26 AM, Alex Tweedly wrote:
> Why can't we build tech items that don't suffer such problems and get fixed
> by this solution
>
Well God couldn't do it with all his creations but instead ensured
there was an impossible to ignore signal of when to