On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:09:01 -0500
Roger Pate wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Laurent Bercot
> wrote:
> > You want a clean process tree with a visually pleasing "ps afuxww"
> > output? Fix your services so they don't leave orphans in the first
> > place. ...
> > Reparenting orphans to
On Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:38:38 -0800
Mitar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I would like to ask if runsvdir could by default be defined as a
> subreaper on Linux. If it is already a PID 1, then there is no
> difference, but sometimes it is not. In that case when an orphan
> process happens under it, then it would
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> You want a clean process tree with a visually pleasing "ps afuxww"
> output? Fix your services so they don't leave orphans in the first
> place. ...
> Reparenting orphans to anything else than the default is a backwards
> way to solve a no
Unlike runit, it also allows you to customize what it
does on receipt of a SIGTERM.
Clarification: runit allows you to customize the action of a signal
sent to _a service_. It does not allow you to customize the action of a
signal sent to _the root of the supervision tree_ (runsvdir).
--
Lau
There is no objective basis for such a claim, this not actually being a
minimal requirement of process #1. Welcome to the future. Your service
manager does not have to be process #1. Your interactive logins are
ordinary services controlled by your service manager. Orphaned child
processes ar
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:49 AM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard
wrote:
> Mitar:
>
>> I would like to ask if runsvdir could by default be defined as a subreaper
>> on Linux.
>
> You are talking to people well versed in the idea of chain-loading programs
> for affecting process state. The answer here is
On 01/30/2017 11:38 AM, Mitar wrote:
Hi!
I would like to ask if runsvdir could by default be defined as a
subreaper on Linux. If it is already a PID 1, then there is no
difference, but sometimes it is not. In that case when an orphan
process happens under it, then it would be re-parented under t
Mitar:
I would like to ask if runsvdir could by default be defined as a
subreaper on Linux.
You are talking to people well versed in the idea of chain-loading
programs for affecting process state. The answer here is to simply run
runsvdir through a chain-loading program that sets the proc
Kamil Cholewiński:
Reaping orphaned children should be the duty of PID 1.
* http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/197472/5132
* http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/177361/5132
There is no objective basis for such a claim, this not actually being a
minimal requirement of process #1. Welcome to the fut
