On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 10:35:48AM -0400, Stephanie Daugherty wrote: [cut]
> > A professional service of any sort should have monitoring - the > administrator should be alerted within minutes if a service doesn't start > when it should or goes down when it shouldn't, > > Getting a little off topic at this point, but opinions vary as to whether > the monitoring should actually restart the service or not. I'm firmly in > the camp that process supervision is evil, because service failures on a > *nix system should not happen, and when they do they should be a really big > inconvenient deal that wakes people up at 3am - because that's the sort of > thing that gets problems noticed and fixed. Process supervision trivializes > failures, and leads us down a path of *tolerating* them and fixing the > symptoms instead of fixing the problem - a really dangerous path when > exploitable code and malicious input are very common causes of service > failure. That's exactly the point. I believe the problem is delegating to init too many things, including process monitoring, restart, singnalling, etc. Maybe I am just a caveman, but I am firmly convinced that there is no way to make system administration simple or automatic. HND KatolaZ -- [ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ] [ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ] [ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ] _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
