From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/2021 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Wayne Marshall Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: pidsig 0.11 - a fghack like de-daemonisation tool Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:00:38 +0000 Organization: guinix international Message-ID: <20100604200038.78f2d374@slate.copperisle.com> References: <20100602184653.GA20534@skarnet.org> <20100603192530.GA19916@skarnet.org> <20100604162624.5a24e83c@slate.copperisle.com> <20100604171714.338d912f@slate.copperisle.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275681606 8505 80.91.229.12 (4 Jun 2010 20:00:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 20:00:06 +0000 (UTC) To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-X-From: supervision-return-2256-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Fri Jun 04 22:00:05 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@lo.gmane.org Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OKd3j-0008S9-SI for gcsg-supervision@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 22:00:03 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 14743 invoked by uid 76); 4 Jun 2010 20:02:05 -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 14725 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2010 20:02:04 -0000 In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.2 (GTK+ 2.16.6; i386--netbsdelf) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:2021 Archived-At: On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:21:18 -0400 (EDT) Charlie Brady wrote: > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Wayne Marshall wrote: > > > On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 12:54:46 -0400 (EDT) > > Charlie Brady > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 21:25:30 +0200 > > > > Laurent Bercot 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