From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/701 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charlie Brady Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Respawn limit for runsv? Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:13:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1108177915 4585 80.91.229.2 (12 Feb 2005 03:11:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 03:11:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-X-From: supervision-return-940-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Sat Feb 12 04:11:54 2005 Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14] ident=qmailr) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CznhF-00021i-9c for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 04:11:49 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 26973 invoked by uid 76); 12 Feb 2005 03:14:07 -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 26967 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2005 03:14:07 -0000 X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com Original-To: Lars Kellogg-Stedman In-Reply-To: X-MailScanner-To: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:701 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:701 On Fri, 11 Feb 2005, Lars Kellogg-Stedman wrote: > > Do you have any concrete example that illustrates the "problem". > > Thanks, but I'm looking at providing a solution to a general class of > problems. There is no general class of problem unless you can provide a single instance. > My question is simply whether or not anyone has investigated > adding this sort of feature to runsv before -- if not, I'll probably Why would they, if there isn't a real problem? > spend some of my time trying to add this behavior, since respawning > software is a reasonably common problem (for example, this is why the > SysV Init package under Linux will stop respawning a process for a few > minutes in this situation). One of the reasons people chose to use daemontools (and subsequently runit) was to get away from such ad-hoc behaviour ... You say that respawning software is a reasonably common problem. Whenever I've seen it, it was a configuration problem. Or rather, there was a configuration problem, and the respawning was a symptom. I didn't see the respawning as a problem. The automated respawning is a feature. You asked for thoughts. I've given them. --- Charlie