Re: rc and smf

[Dan Melomedman <dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     I think what Bill is trying to say, not very diplomatically, is
>     that the truely important pieces of software out there in world
>     don't rely on simple-stupid little monitoring programs to deal 
>     with failures.  They do far more sophisticated tests and the consequences

Nobody argues that. All I was trying to do is point out benefits to
simple, stupid little monitoring programs that restart services when
they fail. Most people seem to have trouble seeing these benefits. You
have the chance to add this little, in my opinion very useful option to
Dragonfly's init (not necessarily by adapting runit), or maybe simply
document it in the Handbook. Why not, really?

>     What I am saying here is that when one is building a highly reliable
>     system, there's a lot more to it then writing a little service restarter.

I agree, but as a sysadmin, using a stupid, simple supervisor is the least you
can do to improve its services uptime. It's very disappointing to see so many
people disagree with me.