> On 9.7.2014 22:46, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> On 9.7.2014 22:00, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>> Lamar Owen wrote:
>>>>> On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>> <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.
>>>>
>>>> * And CA appears to have never heard of selinux, and isn't that great
>>>> with linux in general....
<snip
>> No, the *correct* answer I cannot begin to push, since I don't have an
>> account with CA, and so can't file a bug against *THEIR* commercial $$$
>> crap code, and the one time I tried to push the team who actually owns
>> it, they sort of mentioned it to CA (maybe, or maybe they were just
lying to
>> me), and it got blown off.
>>
>> And no, not when we have this many servers, and my job depends on doing
>> it correctly.
> So you actually go trough everytime to make sure that all the things are
Trough? I don't understand. I do a service httpd stop, and then a ps -ef
to grep for siteminder still running, and then start it again. If there
are problems getting into the website, I shut it down again, then check
using ipcs, and ipcrm to manually get rid of their crap, then service
httpd start.
> properly closed and shut down instead of just waiting few minutes? As
Waiting a few minutes is not appreciated in either a real production or
development environment.
<snip>
mark
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
