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".
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 08:40:21 2011