On Sep 14, 2013, at 4:30 PM, James Peach <jpe...@apache.org> wrote: > On Sep 13, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Yongming Zhao <ming....@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'd like we can get more known of all the confusing problems we have, I >> don't have any conclusion or suggestion at all. >> >> >> here is my known of the 'traffic_line -x', it is the central control of >> taking config update in to running, when you changed the records.config with >> VIM for example. >> but we have some problem here too: >> 1, there is 'traffic_line -s xx -v yy', which will take into action without >> any hesitate. >> 2, if you changed your plugin so, or plugin.config, it won't get in update >> at all, for example TS-2104. >> >> here, we use rpm to manage the ATS binary and plugins, we find it not so >> easy for plugin management too. the plugin is a lightweight change in our >> daily management, we'd not like to restart ATS. > > I have some ideas about how to do a graceful restart of ATS so that plugins > could be reloaded without dropping any connections. Not sure whether there is > a ticket on it. I hope to work on it this year.
Would that retain e.g. the RAM cache across restarts?I like this idea a lot, for things such as server or plugin code upgrades. But is it really the best approach for something you might do very frequently, such as reloading plugin configs? I think that better APIs and infrastructure to let all configs, including plugins, reload gracefully and at close to zero cost is a good idea too. Cheers, -- Leif > >> we found out that if we update the plugin rpm into another new version, with >> so file replaced, it won't take into action, because it is not changed in >> the inode of the filesystem. we have to do a symbol link to for it to be >> included in the remap.config, and name the plugin so in the standard library >> version naming way. >> but the change make it impossible to first install the plugin, then active >> it later, it will take into action as soon as it is installed. so >> 'traffic_line -x' is useless here. > > That sounds like a fixable problem with the reloading process. > >> >> that is what I am wondering, is there any better solution? how should we >> make it for the future? >> >> >> 在 2013-9-14，上午6:41，Nick Kew <n...@webthing.com> 写道： >> >>> On Fri, 13 Sep 2013 22:43:22 +0800 >>> 永豪 <yong...@taobao.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> ## RFC: how to do file monitor and config file reload >>> >>> How would you expect this to relate to "traffic_line -x"? >>> >>> -- >>> Nick Kew >
