On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: > On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: >> Remind me why > Sure. > >> (a) you think that will be perfect, > > Nothing is ever perfect, and I didn't use that word. I think it will > be, after some bug-wrangling, an improvement for many use cases, but not > all. > >> and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to >> continue its unpredictable behavior. > > I have had services that would reliably crash under certain > reproduceable and consistent circumstances that were relatively harmless > otherwise. Restarting the process if certain conditions were met was > the documented by the vendor solution. > > One of those processes was a live audio stream encoder program; > occasionally the input sound card would hiccup and the encoder would > crash. Restarting the encoder process was both harmless and necessary. > While the solution was eventually found years later (driver problems) in > the meantime the process restart was the correct method. > > There are other init packages that do the same thing; it's a feature > that many want. > Since I missed most of the story, can you specify that it is ok for this program to restart whenever it crashes, but this one you will stop restarting after N crashes (N<=0) and then report? > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos