From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1206 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Kevin Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Should svwaitup/down be built again, or how to make sv do this? Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:46:24 -0500 Organization: The Dyslexic Chicken Parade Message-ID: <200607191346.30970.spamite@ev1.net> References: <200607112100.08660.spamite@ev1.net> <200607171256.14899.spamite@ev1.net> <44BC9DEC.90500@uffe.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2717731.EPyPTJioNQ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1153334798 26917 80.91.229.2 (19 Jul 2006 18:46:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 18:46:38 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-1442-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Wed Jul 19 20:46:36 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G3H3j-0008R0-9Y for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 20:46:11 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 23363 invoked by uid 76); 19 Jul 2006 18:46:32 -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 23354 invoked from network); 19 Jul 2006 18:46:32 -0000 Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 In-Reply-To: <44BC9DEC.90500@uffe.org> Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1206 Archived-At: --nextPart2717731.EPyPTJioNQ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline 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. = =20 I was only interested in the service's state. We don't have any services=20 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. =20 Anything that would be so big typically gets broken down into smaller=20 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=20 assistance. --nextPart2717731.EPyPTJioNQ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEvn4GeG1uZde00Q4RAqbTAJ4pmZNYz9+fJwaLNwP1QEsh/CARlQCeMGwW rxv9ra9SaDEEXMq/FihS8/Y= =Hpn0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2717731.EPyPTJioNQ--