From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/708 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Gerrit Pape Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Respawn limit for runsv? Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:48:44 +0000 Message-ID: <20050213134736.14448.qmail@d8e68f84add864.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1108302306 12927 80.91.229.2 (13 Feb 2005 13:45:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:45:06 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-947-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Sun Feb 13 14:45:06 2005 Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14] ident=qmailr) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1D0K3Y-0007Ye-7c for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:45:00 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 5450 invoked by uid 76); 13 Feb 2005 13:47:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 5445 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2005 13:47:32 -0000 Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-MailScanner-To: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:708 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:708 On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 11:21:20PM -0600, Charles Duffy wrote: > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:13:43 -0500, Charlie Brady wrote: > > You say that respawning software is a reasonably common problem. Whenever > > I've seen it, it was a configuration problem. Or rather, there was a > > configuration problem, and the respawning was a symptom. I didn't see the > > respawning as a problem. The automated respawning is a feature. > > Certainly, when it occurs, it's a symptom of a larger problem. That's not > to say that it wouldn't be useful to have more configurable respawning -- > ranging from the simple "no more than N times in M minutes" to backoff > algorithms akin to those used for TCP. > > Putting these more complex algorithms into runit, I agree, isn't > necessarily appropriate -- but that's why he mentioned having a second > process responsible for implementing them. I also think a separate program is appropriate for such special services. Another solution to the problem with log messages getting out-rotated is to have the startup and failing messages of the service written to a different log directory maintained by the same svlogd service. Regards, Gerrit.