Re: runit kill runsv

From: Joan Picanyol i Puig <>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 14:02:31 +0200

* Laurent Bercot <> [20160623 14:20]:
> On 23/06/2016 03:46, Thomas Lau wrote:
> >LOL, well I am trying to do drill test and see how resilience of runit
> >could be, this is one of the minor downfall.
> Current supervisors have no way of knowing that they died and
> their child is still running.

However, couldn't they know whether their child did not cease to run because
of a signal they sent?


> - Any attempt to kill the old instance of the daemon in order to properly
> start a new supervised instance is a policy decision, which belongs to the
> admin; the supervisor program can't make that decision automatically.

No, but neither can the admin enforce this policy automatically and
portably using current supervisors. Other than the "dedicated user/login
class/cgroup" scheme proposed by Jan (which can be considered best
practice anyway), it'd be nice if they exposed this somehow (hand-waving
SMOP ahead: duplicate the pid field in ./status and remove the working
copy only when receiving a down signal).

Anyway, I've been trusing supervision software more than whatever needs to
be supervised since, like, last century, and I really like it this way ;)

Received on Mon Jun 27 2016 - 12:02:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC