Quoting Bernhard Graf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > You should definitely do that. Not only for this case - daemontools (or > similar like runit) are superior for nearly every server service on *ix > OSes. Check out http://smarden.org/runit/runscripts.html and compare > the scripts with typical System-V run scripts (not mentioning the > supervision concept in general).
I suppose that the whole fcgi-pm process will be restarted instead of individual fcgi processes, correct? That'd mean a downtime of about 5 seconds which would render it useless to me :( > Why two FCGI process managers? To compensate FCGI downtimes? Did you > find a way to tell lighttpd not to talk to an FCGI process that is > down? I only get a 500 error in that case. I just _hope_ that lighttpd will do the right thing as the error log tells me this when a backend server goes down: connect failed: Connection refused on unix:/srv/webapp.socket backend died; we'll disable it for 5 seconds and send the request to another backend instead: reconnects: 0 load: 1 --Tobias _______________________________________________ List: Catalyst@lists.rawmode.org Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/catalyst@lists.rawmode.org/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
