On Wed, May 04, 2016 at 09:45:24PM +0100, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > Stephanie Daugherty <sdaughe...@gmail.com> writes: > > Process supervision is something I'm very opinionated about. In a number of > > high availability production environments, its a necessary evil. > > > > However, it should *never* be an out of the box default for any > > network-exposed service, Service failures should be extraordinary events, > > and we should strive to keep treating them as such, > > That's based on a particular assumption about how 'automatic restarts' > will be used, namely, instead of fixing server errors and not as > complement to that: I treat 'server failures' as 'extraordinary events' > but users don't (and shouldn't): They should experience as litte down > time as technically possible. > > [...] > > > The second reason is that it will reduce the number of high-quality bug > > reports developers receive - if failure is part of the routine, it tends > > not to get investigate very thoroughly, if at all. > > It greatly reduces the number of "low-quality" (or rather, "no quality") > bug reports I receive as I don't (usually) get frantic phone calls at > 3am UK time because a server in Texas terminated itself for some > reason. Instead, I can collect the core file as soon as I get around to > that and fix the bug. > > NB: I deal with appliances (as developer) and not with servers (as > sysadmin).
An excellent example of why respawning needs to be an option, and the OS should neither force it on or off. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
