> On 9 Dec 2015, at 17:35, David Pacheco <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:25 AM, George Mamalakis <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08/12/2015 06:51 μμ, Robert Fisher wrote: >> IMO nothing should ever depend on boot order of nodes. If your application >> requires this, its architecture is wrong. If you need A up before B, that >> strongly says to me that the application running on B will die horribly >> if/when A goes away, even temporarily. I've seen distributed systems built >> this way due to devs taking shortcuts and it bit them horribly further down >> the line. >> >> Staggering VM startup, to prevent a "thundering herd" is a different, far >> more valid, problem. >> >> R > There are situations, like boxes with ldap'ed nswitch mechanisms, where the > LDAP server needs to boot before these boxes in order for them to acquire the > appropriate information and be able to start their services properly. > > > > What happens if the LDAP server fails after that system is already up and > running?
You should be replicating to another LDAP server, and teaching the application how to fail over between servers. I’m pretty sure the NSS/PAM LDAP modules inherited by Illumos can do that, although they are pretty horrid in most other regards. Chris ------------------------------------------- smartos-discuss Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/25769125-55cfbc00 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=25769125&id_secret=25769125-7688e9fb Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
