On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:55:49 -0400 Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> 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: to avoid signalling the wrong pid. The race condition -- the time between inspecting the pidfile and sending the signal -- can't be extinguished without a name-based syscall or a superhost a la systemd -- but it can be minimized. And the new daemon could be extended to serve other daemon-management purposes. How would you solve the problem of stale pidfiles? Or do you not agree that's their main pitfall? I suppose NFS is a problem if you monitor daemons on a netbooted server, some kind of weird small box. A daemon would give you a shot at getting that right, too, on the syslogd model. I don't want to make a mountain out of a pidfile. I'd just like to understand your thinking better, because to me "just to service pidfiles" isn't a priori too little cause for a daemon. --jkl
