> On Thu March 7 2013 21:15:33 Roberto De Ioris wrote: >> Ok now i understand. The problem is that nginx is a single instance, >> while >> in emperor mode we talk about potentially hundreds of unrelated >> processes >> with different setup :) Binary patching works instance by instance >> without >> problem, but the emperor is another beast :) > > Thank you for the explanation. > > I will stick with scheduling the upgrades differently then. > > It would be nice if something like that could be added in the future. > > Bjorn >
Just to be sure you have all the situation clear (and that i have understood what you mean ;). This is how things currently work: emperor (alone) you send SIGHUP to it and it will start graceful reloading all of the vassals. emperor + master, you send SIGHUP to the master the emperor dies and all of the vassals are brutally destroyed (will be restarted after the master binary patching) emperor + master, you send SIGHUP to the emperor and it will start graceful reloading all of the vassals. What you are missing is the possibility to reload the vassals as with SIGHUP but with the addition of binary patching the emperor too (reloading itself) Am i right ? -- Roberto De Ioris http://unbit.it _______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
