On 9.7.2014 23:07, m.roth@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> 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.
"Go trough everyting" meant all of the checking you just described.
(Translates more or less directly like that from my native language.) My
point is that I would have made script to deal with that. Not necessary
automatic. And with systemd it should automatically check for any
children left behind httpd automatically. So no need for the script and
not really need for the other checking provided things work. Of course
if things don't work then it's reason to complain.
>
>> 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.
So waiting isn't appreciated except for waiting done for you to log in
(dragging yourself) to the server and doing the things described above?
I would prefer it to be automated with message to me what happened. (In
this instance it's not solution to everything)
-vpk
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
