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 ]