> On Thu March 7 2013 06:44:31 Damjan wrote: >> > That is because the HUP sent on the emperor does not "binary-patch" it >> > but only trigger a respawn of all of its vassals. To batch an emperor >> > you have to shuwtdown it (taking down all of the vassals) and restart. >> >> Which is why you should use --master with --emperor >> >> HUP-ing the master will re-exec the master and restart the emperor > > Unfortunately that brings me back to one of the issues I mentioned > earlier. > When I use --master and --emperor and do a reload after the binary > upgrade, > the sock files for the sites bein managed by emperor are deleted but not > recreated when it restarts.
the Emperor does not manage sockets, they are created by vassals. The only socket created by the emperor is the stats one (if configured) > > Also, I get the impression using this method would not be that graceful > anyway > since the emperor would be restarted stopping all the vassals. > Would that not be correct? > when you restart the emperor all of your vassals are restarted (by design). The whole idea is that the Emperor is spawned on server startup (or in the container in the case of PaaS) and then you never touch it. If you need to upgrade such a vital piece (the Emperor) you'd better to schedule a downtime (or better this is what i would do ;). Again, i am curious, why do you have such a need ? -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
