lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Kernel 2.2.1 and sysvinit 2.76 possible bug
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, B. James Phillippe wrote:

> I see. So tanking the whole unit is better. That way, if no one is
> around, they won't even notice there is a problem (unless they check uptime
> and/or read their logs carefully).

Or they have 'echo Reboot | mail -s "Reboot" root' in their rc
scripts.
Great for unattended machines.
> Seriously, I agree that losing init is going to cause Big Grief, and is an
> unrecoverable situation. But perhaps the user wishes to preserve some
> flexibility as to how to proceed in this dire situation (ie. an opportunity
> to carry out some other task perhaps, before cycling). I would suggest
> that the behavior on loss of init be a toggleable /proc/sys/kernel switch.

No, this is where people should be using a watchdog. If init dies, the
machine should not try to do any special recovery and the watchdog process
should do the reboot if it decides _in user space_ that things are out of
whack.

--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans