Method (2) is the way to go in your case. The parent process can create the childs in a different contract and the parent is free to monitor the contract events or call ct_ctl_abandon() to abandon them.
-- Renaud -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [smf-discuss] Applying SMF to processes that fork and kill children From: Mac Mulder <mac.mul...@mirror-image.com> To: smf-discuss at opensolaris.org Date: Mon May 21 2007 23:56:47 GMT+0200 (CEST) > Hi, > I'm new to the implementation of SMF so hopefully this is not an RTFM type of > question ... > > I'm trying to implement SMF for a process that forks and kills sub-processes > in its (hopefully long!) lifetime. I desire that SMF monitor the parent > process but disregard the children's coming's and going's (and potentially > signal activity). So, while failure of the parent would stimulate SMF to > re-start the service, failure of any children would be left to the parent to > attend to. > > Now, after doing a bunch of searches here and elsewhere I became aware of an > example httpd config (httpd has similar behavior) which included the > following: > > < property_group name='startd' type='framework' > > < ! -- sub-process core dumps shouldn't restart session -- > > < propval name='ignore_error' type='astring' > value='core,signal' / > > < / property_group > > > Initially I thought that this was the "magic bullet". However, this results > in *all* of the processes being ignored, not just the children of the parent. > IE Killing the parent, controlling process, elicits no response from SMF. > > Now, if I go ahead and kill off the child as well, since the critical event > set includes 'hwerr' and 'empty', SMF will ultimately restart my parent app > as desired. However, unless all children are killed, SMF does not recognize > that the parent has moved on to a better computer :-) > > I foresee a couple of suggestions: > > 1) Create separate service entries for the children (possibly using ctrun) > > The parent is a binary. It forks and changes behavior (again like httpd) So I > don't really have the option to break them out with separate method script > invocations etc. > > 2) Have the parent process place the children in a separate contract from the > parent process (and the other related processes) using the API > libcontract(3LIB) and then ignore the contract. > > This is what I suspect I need to do although I'm hoping that there is an RTFM > type XML solution here. I'd endure the embarrassment to save the development > time :-) I figure I could use the code from ctrun and ctwatch to learn from... > > To be honest, if someone who is experienced enough to tell me definitively > that I need to actually code as (2) above to solve this would do so, that'd > be great. That is what I'm thinking is necessary, but I've got this nagging > fear I'm about to embark on a time wasting voyage to no-where and that there > is a much easier way to get the result I desire... > > cheers > Mac > > > This message posted from opensolaris.org > _______________________________________________ > smf-discuss mailing list > smf-discuss at opensolaris.org
