* Laurent Bercot <ska-supervis...@skarnet.org> [20160623 14:20]: > On 23/06/2016 03:46, Thomas Lau wrote: > >LOL, well I am trying to do drill test and see how resilience of runit > >could be, this is one of the minor downfall. > > Current supervisors have no way of knowing that they died and > their child is still running.
However, couldn't they know whether their child did not cease to run because of a signal they sent? [...] > - Any attempt to kill the old instance of the daemon in order to properly > start a new supervised instance is a policy decision, which belongs to the > admin; the supervisor program can't make that decision automatically. No, but neither can the admin enforce this policy automatically and portably using current supervisors. Other than the "dedicated user/login class/cgroup" scheme proposed by Jan (which can be considered best practice anyway), it'd be nice if they exposed this somehow (hand-waving SMOP ahead: duplicate the pid field in ./status and remove the working copy only when receiving a down signal). Anyway, I've been trusing supervision software more than whatever needs to be supervised since, like, last century, and I really like it this way ;) tks -- pica