James Carlson wrote: > 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. >
In the case of networks, which I think is crux of this thread, the HA folks deal with logical addresses which are part of the resource group structure. This has a learning curve for sys admins. What can we do to make this easier for everyone? >> 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. > > I'm not surprised :-) -- richard
