Le quintidi 25 germinal, an CCXXV, tomas@tuxteam.de a écrit : > You keep repeating this misconception. "Could be" "nobody would". By your > logic, Apache and PostgreSQL (among many following this model) wouldn't > work. They do. Pretty reliably, at that. I am sorry, but you are mistaken here, possibly because you have only a vague idea of what "monitoring system" is exactly about. You see, when people talk about "monitoring systems", they are not after "pretty" reliable, they are after PERFECTLY reliable. They want reliability even against million-to-one coincidences. (With the default kernel configuration, "being killed due to a stale PID file" is a 1/65535 coincidence, much higher than million-to-one, except in Discworld logic.) Since perfectly is not possible, they settle for as-much-as-possible. And SysV init is very far from achieving the optimum. Look at the process hierarchy of your SysV-init-based system: Apache and PostgreSQL are direct children of PID 1, but PID 1 does not know about them. If they exit, PID 1 will reap them, but nothing more. There are many reasons that can cause that: OOM killer, bug in the program, hardware problems, stale PID file, admin mistake, etc. Some of them will leave more or less discreet traces in the logs, but not all of them. And you may find these reasons unlikely, but when someone interested in "monitoring systems" hears "unlikely", they understand "possible". And I can say that it happened to me: I have, not often but not just once either, found that Apache or another daemon was not running, and could not find the reason easily. If you are still not convinced, look at the other serious monitoring systems: all of them have at least a provision to run as PID 1. Regards, -- Nicolas George
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature