| 1 |
Am 13.12.2011 00:25, schrieb Alan McKinnon: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:16 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Florian Philipp <lists@×××××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled. |
| 6 |
>>> There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service |
| 7 |
>>> machines. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> Don't tell me you reboot your servers so often that it is necessary to |
| 11 |
>> tune the boot process for every last second. And please tell me you |
| 12 |
>> make the time slots for scheduled reboots large enough for trouble |
| 13 |
>> shooting, thereby not requiring every last second, either. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I think you misunderstand me. I basically said: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> "Parallel init out the box? Works for me." |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I said nothing else. Especially not that I test it often, that I need |
| 20 |
> it, that I know exactly what I'm going to do with the 3 seconds I save |
| 21 |
> or anything else other than one single data point in the discussion |
| 22 |
> about problematic parallel init - that it works for me with simple |
| 23 |
> setups. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Yeah, and this was not meant as an attack specifically to you. Sorry if |
| 28 |
it sounded somewhat harsh. The issue (as stated by James) is: Is it |
| 29 |
worth putting in effort to keep this feature? My answer is: Probably |
| 30 |
not, for the given reasons. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Florian Philipp |
Archives