From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1303 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Laurent Bercot Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Option for runsv/runsvdir to specify how many times to restart a service in a certain time period before giving up? Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:48:57 +0100 Message-ID: <20061031004857.GA25023@skarnet.org> References: <4543AEE3.50200@alex-smith.me.uk> <20061030104923.GC32166@home.power> <20061030121321.GA27602@fly.srk.fer.hr> <20061030123019.GA30814@home.power> <20061030133847.GA25085@skarnet.org> <20061030134227.GA23323@home.power> <20061030135834.GA26907@skarnet.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1162255724 27282 80.91.229.2 (31 Oct 2006 00:48:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 00:48:44 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-1539-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Tue Oct 31 01:48:41 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 1Gehnw-0001b5-Mj for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 01:48:36 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 25904 invoked by uid 76); 31 Oct 2006 00:48:57 -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 25898 invoked by uid 1000); 31 Oct 2006 00:48:57 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1303 Archived-At: > The problem with pid files is race conditions. I don't see that as being a > problem here, as there is a single thread of execution between ./run and > ./finish. ./finish should be able to reliably store whatever state it > needs in the file system. Or do you see something which I don't? I haven't thought of the problem in much detail - and I probably won't in the foreseeable future: until I've finished writing my own supervision suite, which may take an indeterminate amount of time, Gerrit's the definite authority on the subject and I'll trust his decision ;) However, I've written enough buggy code to know that devil is in the details, and enough overall Unix code to know where danger resides. And there's a warning sign going off in my head here: bzzzt! storing short-lived data in the filesystem - potential problems ahead! Not saying it can't work, of course; but there might well be more than meets the eye at first sight, and that implementation decision should not be taken lightly and without caution. -- Laurent