I don't know about other sites, but the servers I manage tend to start showing oddness rather quickly when something goes wrong. I would rather have a clean and quick restart than have a degradation in service. With that said, I don't know of many people who would rely on this feature.
As a side note, a "feature" I relied on many many moons ago (short story follows), I accidently deleted the httpd binary. This was back in the days when virtual hosting wasn't heard of yet and it was a patched set of source we'd tailored to do virtuals that had been lost in a harddrive crash. We ran that server for 6 months without an httpd binary. When power was lost, we shut down -every- other service and machine to make sure this one kept going. Eventually the Apache group released code that supported virtuals, we recompiled and upgraded. But until then, that was our little wonder. We shoved that in the face of the M$ people for years (we were proponents of Linux). This was also the machine that set a few records back in the day for webhosting and bandwidth served. Ok, fireside chat time over. Yes, I think there is a Proper (tm) way to do this that can be graceful and prompt as well as reacting consistently so that monitoring services don't need to be rewritten to support quirks. David Bill Stoddard wrote: > >>Any important site that relies on uptime -should- have some thought >>already put into it. If something fails, some procedure immediately >>takes steps to fix it, i.e. a watchdog that restarts apache. >> > >Yep. > >>If you don't have something like this in place and you are relying so >>heavily on uptime, you are foolishly dancing on the edge of the cliff. >> >Yep!! > >>I vote for doing The Right Thing. It isn't very hard to restart apache. >> But I do recommend a N second delay or some method to gracefully >>terminate as many connections as possible so the world doesn't see any >>problems. >> >>David >> > >Okay, Uncle! I know when I've been bested :-) > >If this change is made, it should have flashing lights attached to it in the CHANGES >file. >There may be people relying on this "feechur" without much thinking about it. Yea, >you can >say they deserve what they get if this is their only line of defense, but good people >make >mistakes occasionally. And Apache has an good track record for reliability and >robstness, >so some folks may just take it for granted. > >Bill >
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
