Re: rc and smf

["Devon H. O'Dell" <dodell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2005-02-24 at 18:22 +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 10:50:35AM -0500, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> > It's built on the correct assumptions. You just don't understand all
> > possibilities why a service process can crash/exist, even if it's a
> > most perfect software ever written. Shit happens, and supervision will
> > attempt to restart the service for any reason it exits/killed. Including
> > human error, of course. What you've never killed the wrong process by
> > mistake? What if you set an rlimit, and the service reaches it, the
> > kernel will then kill the service. With supervision it will be
> > restarted, without it, the service will be down. Simple as that.
> > Programs have bugs, including memory leaks.
> 
> Actually, this is exactly one of the situations where I don't want
> automatic, silent restarts. It hides problems, which is in my position
> even more problematic. "Magic restart" doesn't solve every problem.
> 
> Joerg

In fact, this can be quite an issue when (re)starting ``heavy''
applications every time the daemontools monitor loops when these are
e.g. misconfigured or broken.

--Devon