Re: dbmail init systemd

On 2016-07-15 13:00, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 15.07.2016 um 13:55 schrieb Gordan Bobic:
>> On 2016-07-15 12:33, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Am 15.07.2016 um 13:26 schrieb Gordan Bobic:
>>>> On 2016-07-15 12:24, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.07.2016 um 13:12 schrieb Gordan Bobic:
>>>>>> On 2016-07-15 12:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 15.07.2016 um 12:58 schrieb Gordan Bobic:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-07-15 11:43, Admin Beckspaced wrote:
>>>>>>>>> i see there's also a systemd folder in the 3.2.3 version:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/pjstevns/dbmail/tree/master/systemd
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> and some makefiles ....
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> sorry ... i'm no linux expert, but could you perhaps shed some
>>>>>>>>> light
>>>>>>>>> on creating the proper systemd service files for my OS opensuse
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> would really love to have that nice auto-restart feature once a
>>>>>>>>> dbmail
>>>>>>>>> process crashes.
>>>>>>>>> this is possble with using systemd service files, isn't it?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> While I get that auto-restart on crash is conceptually a very 
>>>>>>>> DevOps
>>>>>>>> way of glazing over the problem, I hope I am not the only one
>>>>>>>> feeling
>>>>>>>> a little nervous about trusting an application that randomly 
>>>>>>>> crashes
>>>>>>>> on a regular basis with something as potentially important as 
>>>>>>>> email.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> surely, but you have two options if a service crashs
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> * process monitoring which restarts it
>>>>>>> * wait for complaint calls and start it by hand
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> none of both will solve the underlying problem magically but 
>>>>>>> "until i
>>>>>>> don't know how to solve the real issue i refuse to start the 
>>>>>>> service"
>>>>>>> won't help ypu
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> No option of migrating to something that doesn't crash if the bug
>>>>>> isn't fixed upstream in a reasonable timeframe?
>>>>> 
>>>>> define reasonable - not easy at least when you wrote many thousand
>>>>> lines of code fro backends and integration between different 
>>>>> services
>>>>> and machines over 8 years.....
>>>> 
>>>> Let me turn that adound - how long an acceptance of things being
>>>> broken might be defined as reasonable?
>>> 
>>> frankly - where should that discussion end?
>>> 
>>> i just need to see the software which works like a wonder and don't
>>> make other problems - and be it only that you lose adminitsrative
>>> features which are possible over a encrypted sql connection and would
>>> neet to be replaced with cronjobs since exectue a system command in a
>>> web-application on a remote server isn't possible without degrade any
>>> sense of security
>>> 
>>> if you try to explain me my job forget it - if your services (no
>>> matter which ones) have no watchdogs you would be better served when
>>> one explains you your job which as sysadmin means high availbility in
>>> case of the unexpexted happens
>> 
>> Exactly - when _UNEXPECTED_ happens. It isn't unexpected if it happens
>> on an hourly basis. HA is something to rely on in case of a disaster.
>> What you seem to be advocating sounds more like accepting disaster as
>> the permanent ongoing state
> 
> boah it does not on a hourly basis - the last crash was months ago here
> troll somewhere else

You are obviously doing better than me. I was getting dbmail-imap 
crashes
at least once/day on my personal mail server, with a total of 4 users
on it.