On Sunday 11 December 2005 02:38, Tomasz Pala wrote: > On Sun, Dec 11, 2005 at 01:23:12 +0100, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote: > > > Small chances for such think to work, as many of our services shall > > > return HGW instead of DONE. > > > > Huh? You seem to have no idea how supervising is usually done. The > > processes > > Indeed. > > How long does it wait until assumes that service is running (it should > wait to eliminate risk of races - init part of one program can take > longer than starting another)? What does it do when required service > dies after some other (which depends on it) has already started (or is > starting)? - I'm particullary interested in service restart/reload, as > they're triggered automatically from logrotate. It doesn't assume anything - if the child is there then it works, if it's not there then it died.
> > are run in foreground as childs of supervising process. If it dies then > > process knows about that. > > Mmhhhmm... 'background'? Hm, why don't we use such a 'supervising > process' now? background for user but foreground for supervising process. We don't use it since no one tried to pust some supervisor into rc-scripts for examp.e. > In short: some services can start just-to-die-SOON giving DONE. With supervising there is no DONE. Take a look at daemontools.spec or free replacement (don't remember name). > After all - what are the advantages? Faster startup (due to > backgrounding jobs)? Sounds coming from my disks say no (maybe if > someone has broken DNS, didn't initialize postgresql database or has > some other misconfiguration). I don't care about faster startup. I care only about one thing - start service again if it died. -- Arkadiusz Miśkiewicz PLD/Linux Team http://www.t17.ds.pwr.wroc.pl/~misiek/ http://ftp.pld-linux.org/ _______________________________________________ pld-devel-en mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en
