Re: posible bug in daemontools

Andy Bradford wrote:

> I don't think the question is the rate at which the daemon is respawning
> (if that were the case a simple sleep as is found in qsutils.c's nomem()
> and pausdir() would likely be  sufficient; supervise does actually sleep
> already at  this point I believe),  but rather the futility  of doing so
> when  there  is  an  inimical  agent attempting  to  randomly  kill  off
> processes.

Bear in mind that the machine that caused the original patch to be produced
wasn't a Linux box, and the supervised process didn't didn't die due to an
OOM killer (which that platform didn't have).


-- 
Regards,
  Daryl Tester

Member of the Amalgamated Australian Association Against Apostrophe Abuse.
(formerly the 6A's - no, wait ...).