On 20/03/2016 18:53, James K. Lowden wrote:
> The biggest problem with pidfiles IMO is stale files left over when the
> process terminates abnormally. That could be remedied with a separate
> daemon, modelled on syslogd, that would create, update and delete
> them. Modify pidfile(3) to use the da
Hi.
"James K. Lowden" wrote:
|mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
|> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
|>>See here:
|>>http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2016/03/21/msg009799.html
Well, btw., the MUA i maintain forks, keeping a communication pipe
to its parent, then c
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:18:13 + (UTC)
mlel...@serpens.de (Michael van Elst) wrote:
> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>
> >See here:
> >http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2016/03/21/msg009799.html
>
> ... handling crashing programs reliably
>
> isn't a worthwhile goal to me.
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:55:25AM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> Lets go back to the original question.
>
> On 20/03/2016 09:26, Michael van Elst wrote:
> > r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
> >
> >> So I've created pidfile_lock (patch attached) to address these problems.
> >
> > Does it wor
On 24/03/2016 12:47, Michael van Elst wrote:
> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>
>> If it doesn't work on NFS and you care so much, please spend your time
>> fixing NFS
>
> If you want to change things you should not try to pass your responsibility
> to someone else.
But with regards to
r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>If it doesn't work on NFS and you care so much, please spend your time
>fixing NFS
If you want to change things you should not try to pass your responsibility
to someone else.
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serp
Lets go back to the original question.
On 20/03/2016 09:26, Michael van Elst wrote:
> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>
>> So I've created pidfile_lock (patch attached) to address these problems.
>
> Does it work on NFS root?
After taking on board what everyone has said, my considered a
r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>See here:
>http://mail-index.netbsd.org/tech-userlevel/2016/03/21/msg009799.html
... handling crashing programs reliably
isn't a worthwhile goal to me.
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
On Thursday 24 March 2016 10:25:20 Brett Lymn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
> > None of my (plenty) diskless machines does that - /var/run is not
> > performance critical, so why bother?
>
> Because it automagically gets cleared out when the machine rebo
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:13:01PM +0100, Martin Husemann wrote:
>
> None of my (plenty) diskless machines does that - /var/run is not
> performance critical, so why bother?
>
Because it automagically gets cleared out when the machine reboots so
you don't have to worry about stale pid files?
--
> It works correctly on NFS if you have the locking daemon setup?
NetBSD doesn't support the client side of NLM, does it?
Ages ago, I wrote the client side (for 3.0), but nobody picked that up.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 02:10:57PM +0100, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> It works correctly on NFS if you have the locking daemon setup? Besides,
> is there even a valid reason for using NFS for pidfiles? I would expect
> /var/run to be a minimal tmpfs in that kind of installations.
None of my (plent
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:43:31PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:53:03PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:46 you wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:29:37 +
> > >
> > > Roy Marples wrote:
> > > > pidfile(3) is pretty crap - it just w
On Mon 21 Mar 2016 at 19:02:10 -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:44:40PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> >
> > foo starts as PID 10, links /var/foo and writes 10 to it.
>
> "As simple as possible but no simpler". Don't just write 10, write
> hostname-proctitle-10 (this i
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:44:40PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
>
> foo starts as PID 10, links /var/foo and writes 10 to it.
"As simple as possible but no simpler". Don't just write 10, write
hostname-proctitle-10 (this is an old solution too; trn does it).
Thor
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:55:49 -0400
Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Please do not introduce a daemon just to service pidfile.
Do one thing and do it well?
It need not be a new daemon. The functionality could attach to
syslogd, for example, or init
I know you understand the motivation: t
dyo...@pobox.com (David Young) writes:
>I'm not sure that the problem of pidfile(3)-using crashing programs is
>serious enough on its own to justify changing the kernel.
The standard usage is:
system bootstrap removes pidfiles (or uses empty tmpfs)
daemon creates pidfile exclusively on startup a
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:44:40PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> How else would you solve your need to work on NFS and my need to lock
> and handling crashing programs reliably?
I'm not sure that the problem of pidfile(3)-using crashing programs is
serious enough on its own to justify changing the k
On 21/03/2016 14:55, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:30:43PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
>>>
>>> In fact, what you really want is just the guts of shlock(1), specifically
>>> the shlock -p behavior. I can't see any reason why pidfile shouldn't just
>>> do exactly what shloc
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:30:43PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> >
> > In fact, what you really want is just the guts of shlock(1), specifically
> > the shlock -p behavior. I can't see any reason why pidfile shouldn't just
> > do exactly what shlock -p does, except with a C rather than a shell
> >
On 21/03/2016 00:46, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:43:31PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:53:03PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
>>> On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:46 you wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:29:37 +
Roy Marples wrote
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:43:31PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:53:03PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> > On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:46 you wrote:
> > > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:29:37 +
> > >
> > > Roy Marples wrote:
> > > > pidfile(3) is pretty crap - it just w
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 08:53:03PM +, Roy Marples wrote:
> On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:46 you wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:29:37 +
> >
> > Roy Marples wrote:
> > > pidfile(3) is pretty crap - it just writes to the file without any
> > > locking.
> >
> > I don't understand why you
In article <21451069.kys5rkk...@uberpc.marples.name>,
Roy Marples wrote:
>On Sunday 20 March 2016 23:05:12 Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> In article <1547312.w6y7ml9...@uberpc.marples.name>,
>> Roy Marples wrote:
>>
>> There is no need for pidfile_lock(), just fix pid_file() to return pid_t.
>> I'v
On Sunday 20 March 2016 23:05:12 Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <1547312.w6y7ml9...@uberpc.marples.name>,
> Roy Marples wrote:
>
> There is no need for pidfile_lock(), just fix pid_file() to return pid_t.
> I've audited the code in the tree and the code that checks, checks for -1.
> The com
In article <1547312.w6y7ml9...@uberpc.marples.name>,
Roy Marples wrote:
There is no need for pidfile_lock(), just fix pid_file() to return pid_t.
I've audited the code in the tree and the code that checks, checks for -1.
The compat code below is probably wrong anyway.
christos
>+/* The old fun
On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:53:46 you wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:29:37 +
>
> Roy Marples wrote:
> > pidfile(3) is pretty crap - it just writes to the file without any
> > locking.
>
> I don't understand why you think any of that matters. Locks only
> advisory anyway. Any noncooperating
On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 23:29:37 +
Roy Marples wrote:
> pidfile(3) is pretty crap - it just writes to the file without any
> locking.
I don't understand why you think any of that matters. Locks only
advisory anyway. Any noncooperating process can (with sufficient
privilege) overwrite the file
r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>Saying that, I'm not really bothered about any remote lock on a remote fs,
>just as long as it can lock correctly on the host.
Why would you think NFS root to be not on the host?
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@
On Sunday 20 March 2016 14:04:52 Roy Marples wrote:
> Updated patch with man page changes, including an example of it's use.
> Added pidfile_remove() which fixes the existing BUGS section.
> Added pidfile_close() so a forked process can close it safely.
> Made pidfile_read() visible so it's easy to
Updated patch with man page changes, including an example of it's use.
Added pidfile_remove() which fixes the existing BUGS section.
Added pidfile_close() so a forked process can close it safely.
Made pidfile_read() visible so it's easy to obtain the PID to send a signal to.
RpyIndex: include/util
On Sunday 20 March 2016 09:26:23 Michael van Elst wrote:
> r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
> >So I've created pidfile_lock (patch attached) to address these problems.
>
> Does it work on NFS root?
I've not tested it especially, but I would assume so as flock(2) makes no note
of it not wo
r...@marples.name (Roy Marples) writes:
>So I've created pidfile_lock (patch attached) to address these problems.
Does it work on NFS root?
--
--
Michael van Elst
Internet: mlel...@serpens.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every t
33 matches
Mail list logo
