Re: Problems with depend

[Rory Toma]

I purposely did it this way. It would be difficult to implement the
other way. We'd have to have some kind of data structure that keeps
track of everything, rather than the pointers to the next processes that
we use now.

I'll see if I can think of something simple. I think I can easily fix
the previous problem, but not this one. Perhaps we can better document
the monitrc file and mention that the order matters?

On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 11:49, Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:
> <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > I'll check it out. I assume that running monit stop and monit start
> > do the right thing? I may have forgotten to test the "restart" case.
> 
> When I use the setup 
> 
>  check apache (..) depend foobar
>  check foobar (..)
> 
> and no process is running I get the following log output. It looks
> like the depend process is not started first. I thought that if A
> depends on B then the start order is first B then A? It also looks
> 
> [CET Nov  5 20:33:11] 'apache' is not running.
> [CET Nov  5 20:33:11] stop: (sendmail) /home/hauk/bin/tst
> [CET Nov  5 20:33:11] start: (apache) /usr/local/apache/bin/http
> [CET Nov  5 20:33:11] start: (sendmail) /home/hauk/bin/tst
> [CET Nov  5 20:33:11] Found 0 certificates
> [CET Nov  5 20:33:14] 'sendmail' is not running.
> [CET Nov  5 20:33:14] start: (sendmail) /home/hauk/bin/tst
> 
> If I change the order in the monitrc file to 
> 
>  check foobar (..)
>  check apache (..) depend foobar
> 
> I then get the following listing when no processes are running.
> 
> [CET Nov  5 20:37:38] 'sendmail' is not running.
> [CET Nov  5 20:37:38] start: (sendmail) /home/hauk/bin/tst
> [CET Nov  5 20:37:38] Found 0 certificates
> [CET Nov  5 20:37:41] 'apache' is not running.
> [CET Nov  5 20:37:41] stop: (sendmail) /home/hauk/bin/tst
> [CET Nov  5 20:37:41] start: (apache) /usr/local/apache/bin/http
> [CET Nov  5 20:37:41] start: (sendmail) /home/hauk/bin/tst
> 
> In other words maybe some analysis should be done first before
> atempting to start a process, to avoid the on-off-on start pattern,
> and that the start order is according to the dependency and not the
> order, entries was written in the monitrc file. It's probably going to
> be much harder to implement B-) What do you think?
> 
> -- 
> Jan-Henrik Haukeland
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> monit-dev mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/monit-dev
> 
-- 
Rory Toma               address@hidden
VP of Run Level 5       http://www.trs80.net
Digeo Digital           http://www.digeo.com

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part