3 ms·
Just for the sake of discussion, if we assume any general, generic computer process that works fine serially breaks in a parallel environment, is that really a
by hnarn 6y ago
Just for the sake of discussion, if we assume any general, generic computer process that works fine serially breaks in a parallel environment, is that really a valid argument for or against parallelism?
In the short term, things breaking like this are of course frustrating, but if it was my environment I’d prefer that this dependency was an explicit part of the configuration rather than something that works “by accident”, unless one prefers that initialization should never be anything but serial, but I personally at least don’t see the benefits of that outweighing what systemd offers.
- scbrg 6y ago> is that really a valid argument for or against parallelism? Not really. That wasn't the question though. The question was "were there more race condition with the parallel system than with the serial system?". The answer was undeniably, objectively yes.
- hnarn 6y agoI think the question posed is really odd, because race conditions cannot really exist as long as you only assume serial processing. I mean, the definition of a race condition means it's dependent on timing, which is an excluded risk if you're not attempting to start your services in parallel. So a better question in my opinion is: does the tradeoffs mean we should go back to serial execution? My feeling is no.