From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/1489 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charlie Brady Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: runit not collecting zombies Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 19:23:13 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <20070619190751.GC27090@home.power> <20070620162325.26345.qmail@7d91355cde742c.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070620165736.GC12963@home.power> <20070620183532.4571.qmail@9f638fd8b69905.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070623044205.GA1594@home.power> <20070626095920.6195.qmail@3e147d410b1c2c.315fe32.mid.smarden.org> <20070715144704.GS23517@home.power> <20070715190757.GW23517@home.power> <20070715201846.GT3925@run.galis.org> <20070715223553.GU3925@run.galis.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1184541797 30396 80.91.229.12 (15 Jul 2007 23:23:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 23:23:17 +0000 (UTC) To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-X-From: supervision-return-1726-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Mon Jul 16 01:23:16 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IADQp-0001G4-JH for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Mon, 16 Jul 2007 01:23:15 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 15013 invoked by uid 76); 15 Jul 2007 23:23:37 -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 15007 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2007 23:23:36 -0000 X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com In-Reply-To: Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:1489 Archived-At: On Sun, 15 Jul 2007, Paul Jarc wrote: > "George Georgalis" wrote: >> but in practice isn't the best way to deal with defunct entries by >> attaching fd to a file or socket then exec the child (which may >> fork) so the parent no longer has a fd open to the child? > > It sounds like you're thinking of something like fghack, but that's a > solution to a different problem: a service that forks itself into the > background, which makes it difficult to supervise. The problem here > is different: some processes outlive their parents, so they are > adopted by process 1, but process 1 is not wait()ing for them. So there are two problems there - the processes which are outliving their parents, and runit as process 1. Most people here seem to be ignoring the first problem, and instead are just looking for a magic fix by someone solving problem 2.