Petteri Räty <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11.12.2013 15.54, Michael Fischer wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Petteri Räty <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> At least for pid based monitoring tools it is (I do agree with others > >> that you should also be monitoring http though). For example monit > >> requires that you give it a pid file. Why is it wrong for them to point > >> to the same pid? > > > > Monit doesn't require a pid, never has: > > > > http://mmonit.com/monit/documentation/monit.html#connection_testing > > > > If you only want to do connection testing. What if you want to monitor > the memory usage of unicorn processes?
Your monitoring has to adapt to the new processes anyways. Can it really not deal with a PID file being temporarily absent? There's a plethora of tools in the wild which deal with PID files. Consider this case: It's likely a tool will see foo.pid.oldbin existing, and wait for foo.pid to become available. If foo.pid is already available from a hardlink, it'll be pointing to the old PID, and any tool which backs out of the upgrade by intending to kill the new PID will end up hitting the old one. _______________________________________________ Unicorn mailing list - [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-unicorn Do not quote signatures (like this one) or top post when replying
