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    [W:0.028 / U:61.240 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site