Roger Hoover wrote: > In that blog post, it says there was a way to avoid the need for > staggering. Is there a real use case for this? > > If a startdelay parameter is introduced, should there also be a delay > applied between starting multiple processes in the same process group > (numprocs > 1)? > > What about a global setting telling supervisord to start everything > serially (don't fork the next process until the previous one is up or > failed (as determined by it's startsecs command)?
Something like that would be pretty useful. We've always known that there's some dependency map lurking here obviously. e.g. [program:foo] depends = bar ... we've just never got around to doing it. - C > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:41 AM, Chris McDonough <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Lennart Regebro wrote: > > Hiya! > > > > When starting my zeo-clients I don't want them to all connect at the > > same time, but stagger it. I found a buildout with a sleep script > that > > does this, but it fails when killing the processes during shutdown. > > (http://rpatterson.net/blog/stagger-supervisord) > > > > Is there another way of doing this? :-) > > > > I took a quick look at the process.py code and it does not seem > *very* > > hairy to implement a startupdelay parameter. Is there any reason not > > to implement this? If not do you want me to try? > > > > If you've got it in, you sure... > > - C > > _______________________________________________ > Supervisor-users mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > http://lists.supervisord.org/mailman/listinfo/supervisor-users > > _______________________________________________ Supervisor-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.supervisord.org/mailman/listinfo/supervisor-users
