Re: Should svwaitup/down be built again, or how to make sv do this?

[Kevin <spamite@ev1.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1295 bytes --]

On Tuesday 18 July 2006 03:38, Uffe Jakobsen wrote:

> I may be wrong here but there seems to be some sort of confusion about
> the internal state of a service versus the external runit state
> running/not running.
>
> The runit supervisor framework can only see if a service (process) is
> running - it has no idea if that service is yet functional or not.

Correct.  You did identify the point of confusion for us though, I think.  
I was only interested in the service's state.  We don't have any services 
that take any time to initialize like you spoke of later.

> My guess is that you've until now just been lucky that your service
> typically takes just a little less than 2 seconds to initialize and
> become operational.

None of our services take longer than that to become operational.  
Anything that would be so big typically gets broken down into smaller 
services.

> That is why Gerrit suggests that you should implement a test in your
> check script that can determine if your service actually has become
> operational (functional) yet or not. Typical checks could be to test if
> the service is listening on a socket/port.
>
> Let's hope I'm not all wrong :-)

You were not wrong, actually.  And I thank you and Gerrit both for your 
assistance.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]