Crash-only is rather different from power cycling. The unit of granularity in a crash-only metaphor is at a higher level (process, thread, green thread or other

Crash-only is rather different from power cycling. The unit of granularity in a crash-only metaphor is at a higher level (process, thread, green thread or other schedulable entity), the whole point being that you delegate to a supervisor tree for restarting crashed subtasks/processes to a known good state while maintaining the uptime and integrity of the entire system (i.e. crashes are not typically user-visible). It works really well because in any complex system running on top of so many layers, the state space expands combinatorially so that performing intricate error diagnosis and recovery procedures will often be a losing proposition from the number of code paths you'd need to properly exercise. Power cycling is different. A system that expects you to power cycle often because it consistently fragments or cannot dynamically update/reread its configuration is broken and a major annoyance. In many ways, systems that require lots of power cycling are as such because they're designed in a way antithetical to crash-only. It's a failure to enforce boundaries and separation of concerns.