On Thursday 16 August 2007 14:32, Tobias Kremer wrote: > 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 :(
No. The softlimit applies to each of the processes forked by the master, so each process is terminated if it gets too fat. > > 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 Just by setting multiple "socket" entries in the lighttpd-conf? -- Bernhard Graf _______________________________________________ List: [email protected] Listinfo: http://lists.rawmode.org/mailman/listinfo/catalyst Searchable archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Dev site: http://dev.catalyst.perl.org/
