On 07/09/2014 03:00 PM, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 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....
So develop your own. I have some scripts around here somewhere that I
have used in the past to help me make policies for things that tell you
to turn off selinux (I think I did it for roundcube).
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
