Richard Elling writes: > James Carlson wrote: > > The "new" thing here is that parents are shot for the sins of > > grandchildren, and it happens in unexpected ways. (Which goes back to > > the whole question of understanding how fault boundaries are set. > > It's an issue I don't think we understand well, or that any UNIX > > designer would _expect_.) > > > > I think I disagree. The SMF model is remarkably similar to the > model used by Solaris Cluster and most other HA clustering products.
HA != UNIX, at least in this context. Yes, I'm _well_ aware that there are particular domains in which collective blame (and even process restart) are the long-accepted norm. I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. However, that's not the tradition that was in use here, and that's *not* what anyone calling fork/exec was ever expecting before. The change is surprising, and (apparently) hasn't been backed with a rethink of how all these legacy bits of software actually use those interfaces. > So the reason I disagree is that people who do HA for a living > do understand these concepts. If you want to get there, then you > also need to understand these concepts. If you expect SMF to > magically make anything you write HA, then you will be sadly > misshapen. SMF, though, magically makes what you do behave quite differently and in surprising ways. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
