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. When I do a kernel upgrade on the hosts and switch the primary and secondary, I want the "important" vservers to shutdown last on one side and startup first on the other. Then they are down for just a few seconds. "Unimportant" vservers shutdown first and startup last. They may be down for a couple of minutes. It's not that the machines "depend" on each other; it's that some are much more "mission-critical" than others. I want the mail servers to come back first, for example. Vservers running testing or development environments, however, should be started last. I don't want to leave this to alphabetical order by the config directory, which is what you get now. I want to say that vserver 'C' should start first, vserver 'F' next, and so on. No matter how many I start in parallel and no matter how long it takes for any individual machine to start, they will come up in this order. Obviously this isn't a felt need for your situation. Many people probably agree with you. When I asked about this on the list (over a year ago) only a few folks answered, and those who did said that they had worked out their own methods for starting vservers in a certain order. I'm proposing a way to 'standardize' this so it doesn't have to be "worked out" again. But of course, if only a handful of folks actually need this, then it's a waste of time and an unnecessary complication to include it. Those of us who need it will continue to use our own methods. Jeff Jansen