On 11/7/15 9:26 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:05:23 +0000
> Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
>
>> Worrying about 'starting servers in parallell' only makes sense if
>> there's a real-world situation where this demonstrably makes a
>> relevant difference. And I very much doubt that --- that's just
>> another imaginary sugar-coating supposed to help selling systemd to
>> people who are not expected to understand the issue. As someone
>> recently wrote,
> I'd like to discuss this. Now, after a year of thought, I still see no
> benefit to "starting servers in parallel" except for boot time. There
> are use cases where boot time is critical (99.9999% uptime, or a
> television appliance), but for the vast majority of us the difference
> between a 1 second boot and a 40 second boot is we get a chance to go
> get a cup of coffee every day, week, month, year, whatever. And
> frankly, it's been a long time since I've seen any system that takes
> more than 30 seconds to boot.
>
>

Boot time better NOT be critical for high availability situations. Any
reasonable systems designer uses hot sparing & failover to achieve high
uptime. Everything had better already be booted on the failover system.

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra