From: Wayne Marshall <wcm@guinix.com>
To: supervision@list.skarnet.org
Subject: Re: pidsig 0.11 - a fghack like de-daemonisation tool
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:00:38 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100604200038.78f2d374@slate.copperisle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006041318220.18348@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com>
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:21:18 -0400 (EDT)
Charlie Brady <charlieb-supervision@budge.apana.org.au> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Wayne Marshall wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:54:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > Charlie Brady <charlieb-supervision@budge.apana.org.au>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 21:25:30 +0200
> > > > Laurent Bercot <ska-supervision@skarnet.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Strong supervision makes sure that your supervisor
> > > > > process tree is *always* alive and complete, unless
> > > > > process 1 itself crashes, in which case you're doomed
> > > > > to reboot anyway.
> > >
> > > There is a weakness in this "strong supervision" model. Any
> > > service with a 'down' file will not be restarted if its
> > > supervise/runsv or svscan/runsvdir is replaced.
> >
> > Why do you describe this as a "weakness"? The down flagfile
> > is consulted only on startup of the supervisor. If the
> > administrator has configured the service to be down on
> > startup, presumably she wants it to be down on startup.
>
> I thought that we were discussing here the situation where the
> supervisor dies and is automatically restarted. That is not
> the 'on startup' where the adminstrator intends the service to
> be down. "on startup" is long gone, and the adminstrator has
> started the service, and wants it to continue running. The
> automated restart of the supervisor shouldn't change that
> running state.
>
Well, the down flagfile is relevant on startup of the
supervisor. Starting/restarting the supervisor may occur at
system boot, and/or any number of times thereafter. Supervisors
do not normally need to know or care between system boot and
"thereafter".
If the administrator needs to differentiate between system boot
and "thereafter", she will have probably need to effect that
differentiation through her system boot/shutdown scripts. But
that is her problem, rather than a weakness in the supervisory
model.
Cheers,
Wayne
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-04 20:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-02 6:08 Janos Farkas
2010-06-02 18:46 ` Laurent Bercot
2010-06-03 16:53 ` Janos Farkas
2010-06-03 19:25 ` Laurent Bercot
2010-06-04 16:26 ` Wayne Marshall
2010-06-04 16:54 ` Charlie Brady
2010-06-04 17:17 ` Wayne Marshall
2010-06-04 17:21 ` Charlie Brady
2010-06-04 20:00 ` Wayne Marshall [this message]
2010-06-04 18:43 ` Laurent Bercot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100604200038.78f2d374@slate.copperisle.com \
--to=wcm@guinix.com \
--cc=supervision@list.skarnet.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).