Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
<snip>
>> and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to
>> continue its unpredictable behavior.
>
> I have had services that would reliably crash under certain
> reproduceable and consistent circumstances that were relatively harmless
> otherwise. Restarting the process if certain conditions were met was
> the documented by the vendor solution.
>
> One of those processes was a live audio stream encoder program;
> occasionally the input sound card would hiccup and the encoder would
> crash. Restarting the encoder process was both harmless and necessary.
> While the solution was eventually found years later (driver problems) in
> the meantime the process restart was the correct method.
<snip>
On the other hand, restarting can be the *wrong* answer for some things.
For example, a bunch of our sites use SiteMinder from CA*. I do *not*
restart httpd; I stop it, and wait half a minute or so to make sure
sitenanny has shut down correctly and completely, closed all of its
sockets, and released all of its IPC semaphores and shared memory
segments, and *then* start it up. Otherwise, no happiness.
mark
* And CA appears to have never heard of selinux, and isn't that great with
linux in general....
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
