Re: rc and smf

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Devon H. O'Dell wrote:

> 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

ACK - and a *Royal* PITA when trying to manually start-stop test and 
troubleshoot config changes - especially during an upgrade that hasn't 
been DJB-ized yet while the old one was..

'Never again'.

Bill