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
*smartos-discuss* | Archives
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/184463/=now>
<https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/184463/27859381-ca8a3c45>
| Modify
<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>
Your Subscription [Powered by Listbox] <http://www.listbox.com>
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. I've met other plausible examples in my life as well, and even
though priority-based design has restrictions over non priority-based
design, I wouldn't call it wrong. But that's obviously very subjective.
--
George Mamalakis
IT and Security Officer,
Electrical and Computer Engineer (Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki),
PhD (Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki),
MSc (Imperial College of London)
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
phone number : +30 (2310) 994379
-------------------------------------------
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
