From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/2019
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Charlie Brady <charlieb-supervision@budge.apana.org.au>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general
Subject: Re: pidsig 0.11 - a fghack like de-daemonisation tool
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:21:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006041318220.18348@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com>
References: <AANLkTimDguA-oWt2I-FXzy9beqSPNCLdAajQ2duHcnBA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100602184653.GA20534@skarnet.org> <AANLkTikD0KKb7Pqcinv_wpyBGEGy-nK97TgRhIR6y4H5@mail.gmail.com>
 <20100603192530.GA19916@skarnet.org> <20100604162624.5a24e83c@slate.copperisle.com>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.1006041252280.18348@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com>
 <20100604171714.338d912f@slate.copperisle.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1275672084 6751 80.91.229.12 (4 Jun 2010 17:21:24 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 17:21:24 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: supervision@list.skarnet.org
To: Wayne Marshall <wcm@guinix.com>
Original-X-From: supervision-return-2254-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Fri Jun 04 19:21:23 2010
connect(): No such file or directory
Return-path: <supervision-return-2254-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org>
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 <supervision-return-2254-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org>)
	id 1OKaaA-0001fy-Ml
	for gcsg-supervision@lo.gmane.org; Fri, 04 Jun 2010 19:21:22 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 7613 invoked by uid 76); 4 Jun 2010 17:23:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm
List-Post: <mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org>
List-Help: <mailto:supervision-help@list.skarnet.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:supervision-unsubscribe@list.skarnet.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:supervision-subscribe@list.skarnet.org>
List-Archive: <http://www.skarnet.org/lists/>
Original-Received: (qmail 7605 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2010 17:23:25 -0000
X-X-Sender: charlieb@e-smith.charlieb.ott.istop.com
In-Reply-To: <20100604171714.338d912f@slate.copperisle.com>
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:2019
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/2019>


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.