Thanks David The trick you suggested for point 3 may not work in my case. What happens is - my process may be busy with some other activity during which time it will fail to send periodic message to systemd. After a while it will come out of it's loop and ready to serve. But during this time system would have already marked the process as failed. As the has come back to it's regular working state, I don't want to kill the process or restart the process. As far as clients which are dependent on the service is concerned - service is in good shape but for systemd it is in failed state. so I would like to change the state of the service to active (running) at this time so that my service management framework also would be in good shape.
Thanks Salil On 21 November 2013 12:06, David Timothy Strauss <da...@davidstrauss.net>wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:33 PM, salil GK <gksa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 3. One more use case I can think of is - if the process fail to send > > heartbeat message ( WATCHDOG ) for some time and later it starts sending > - > > because of some time. So during the time WATCHDOG notification is missing > > process can be marked as failed and the moment notification start coming, > > can it be marked as active-running ? > > I'm not sure, but this would be easy to test. You could also restart > on failed watchdog if you want systemd to react. > > > 4. Is there way systemd can notify me in case a watchdog timeout > happens > > for a service - like systemd calls some program or write to some socket > etc. > > So basically in case any service fails because of watchdog timeout, I > would > > like to know asynchronously. Is there any way I can configure this. > > We typically poll systemctl --failed periodically as part of our > monitoring. >
_______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
