From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/702 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Charles Duffy Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Re: Respawn limit for runsv? Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 23:21:20 -0600 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1108185613 4658 80.91.229.2 (12 Feb 2005 05:20:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 05:20:13 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: supervision-return-941-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Sat Feb 12 06:20:10 2005 Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14] ident=qmailr) by ciao.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CzphK-000178-J8 for gcsg-supervision@gmane.org; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 06:20:02 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 27505 invoked by uid 76); 12 Feb 2005 05:22:21 -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 27499 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2005 05:22:21 -0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-Lines: 29 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: user-0ccss7l.cable.mindspring.com User-Agent: Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table (Debian GNU/Linux)) Original-Sender: news X-MailScanner-To: gcsg-supervision@gmane.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:702 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:702 On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:13:43 -0500, Charlie Brady wrote: > There is no general class of problem unless you can provide a single > instance. Let me jump in here. I have a web server. It's running a big, complex servlet container (which provides only one of the many services available) that eats a bunch of CPU time and writes a bunch of logs trying to start up. Should the servlet container be misconfigured in such a way as to die immediately after startup (and some such misconfigurations could occur based on issues on other systems ie. the DNS server), the automated respawning would bring everything else on the web server to its knees. > 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. Certainly, when it occurs, it's a symptom of a larger problem. That's not to say that it wouldn't be useful to have more configurable respawning -- ranging from the simple "no more than N times in M minutes" to backoff algorithms akin to those used for TCP. Putting these more complex algorithms into runit, I agree, isn't necessarily appropriate -- but that's why he mentioned having a second process responsible for implementing them.