Re: delayed child restart with incremental back-off

Richard Carlsson <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lang.erlang.general
Message-ID <CANKG3zmOYA9QLCaShH7ZH-7=w=BoAdtn4Y=3-CDr5RurrUz-4A@mail.gmail.com>
What happened at the time was that I met up with the OTP team and discussed
it, and they eventually agreed that this was a good thing. However, it
needed more work to be accepted (and I realized a couple of weaknesses in
the implementation that I needed to address), but I never found time to do
more work on it.

        /Richard


Den sön 2 maj 2021 kl 21:01 skrev Nicolas Martyanoff <[email protected]>:

>
> Hi,
>
> I originally posted this email on erlang-patches, but I just realized
> most developers are on erlang-questions instead. I believe this could be
> of interest.
>
>
> Nine years ago, an interesting patch [1] was submitted by Richard Carlsson
> allowing to delay the re-creation of failed children in supervisors.
>
> After a quick discussions, the official answer was that the OTP team
> would discuss about it [2]. There is no further message on the mailing
> list.
>
> Was there an official response ?
>
> I have various supervisors whose children handle network connections.
> When something goes wrong with the connection, children die and are
> immediately restarted. Most of the times, errors are transient (remote
> server restarting, temporary network issue, etc.), but retrying without
> any delay is pretty much guaranteed to fail again. And of course after a
> few retries, the application dies which is unacceptable.
>
> This kind of behaviour is a huge problem: it fills logs with multiple
> copies of identical errors and causes a system failure.
>
> In general, if I could, I would use restart delays with exponential
> backoff everywhere because in practice, restarting immediately is almost
> never the right approach: code errors do not disappear when restarting
> so they are going to get triggered again immediately, and external errors
> are not magically fixed by retrying without any delay.
>
> Is there still interest for this patch ?
>
> [1] https://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-patches/2012-January/002575.html
> [2] https://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-patches/2012-January/002597.html
>
> --
> Nicolas Martyanoff
> http://snowsyn.net
> [email protected]
>
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.