Upstart: feature questions and test code
yanegomi at gmail.com
Wed Jun 11 02:31:59 BST 2008
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Casey Dahlin <cjdahlin at ncsu.edu> wrote:
> Garrett Cooper wrote:
>> One point of concern... has anyone considered executing upstart in a
>> failover fashion at all, i.e. one process runs as pid = 1 and another
>> pid = 2, so pid = 1 watches the processes it spawns + the failover
>> daemon, while pid = 2 just monitors the pid = 1 copy (seems circular,
>> but that way all of the bases would be covered to a certain degree)?
>> Or if pid = 1 dies is it considered "game over, system completely
>> I know that would make process ownership difficult if nigh /
>> completely impossible, but at one point there was some discussion of
>> having failover process management daemons.
>> Not a likely case, but just something I remembered hearing about from
> The death of pid 1 causes an immediate kernel panic. This is a kernel
> decision and applies to any init daemon, not just upstart.
> Like the kernel itself, this is a component that simply can't fail.
I realized that just before you emailed me after discussing it with
Thanks though :),
More information about the upstart-devel