On Thu February 3 2011, Rik Bobbaers wrote:
> Do you really "not get" the need? or do you not want to get it?
>
> I can imagine perfectly a need for "a startup order" of servers without
> necessarily having "dependencies".
>
The current system deals with hardware / software dependences.
The O.P. seems to be dealing with a third dependency (keep job) ;-)
Seriously,
the dependency on a need to implement local policy and procedures.
Or,
footnote #3 in the latest P&P memo from the director of network engineering.
Something like that can only be declared (like DoNE did in memo).
So the O.P. has proposed a way to declare such arbitrary requirements.
As Herbert suggests, perhaps translating those arbitrary requirements
into some sort of priority scheme might be an alternative solution.
But that would require an additional translation of the P&P directive.
The original suggestion sounds like a more direct answer to the requirement.
Mike
> it's a clear difference in "language" as it is in this case...
>
> if i want apetizers, then starter, then soup, then main course, than
> desert... that's an order i want it in. But it's not that i can't have
> soup before the starter if there is something wrong with the starter
>
> just my 2 peanuts for the monkeys :)
>
> Rik Bobbaers
>
> -- http://harry.enzoverder.be
> linux/unix/system/network/security/hardware admin
> infrastructure architect
>
> > Jeff Jansen wrote:
> >> On Tuesday 01,February,2011 09:30 PM, Daniel Hokka Zakrisson wrote:
> >>> I still fail to see why you care what order they start in. If you don't
> >>> have explicit dependencies between them, i.e. you don't use depends,
> >>> then
> >>> why does it matter? If you just set the number of parallel starts to
> >>> whatever number you want, that is the number that will be running at
> >>> once,
> >>> all the time.
> >>
> >> Because some vservers are more "important" than others. When a primary
> >> host node crashes and a secondary takes over, I want the important
> >> vservers to start up before the less important ones.
> >
> > It sounds like you're doing it wrong. Why don't you fail-over on a
> > guest-by-guest basis?
>
>
Received on Thu Feb 3 11:53:27 2011