In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: |> |> What makes you think Paddy indicated he wouldn't try to solve the problem? |> Here's what he wrote: |> |> What I'm proposing is that if, for example, a process stops running |> three times in a year at roughly three to four months intervals , and it |> should have stayed up; then restart the server sooner, at aa time of |> your choosing, whilst taking other measures to investicate the error. |> |> I see nothing wrong with trying to minimize the chances of a problem rearing |> its ugly head while at the same time trying to investigate its cause (and |> presumably solve it).
No, nor do I, but look more closely. His quote makes it quite clear that he has got it firmly in his mind that this is a degradation problem, and so regular restarting will improve the reliability. Well, it could also be one where failure becomes LESS likely the longer the server stays up (i.e. the "settling down" problem). No problem is as hard to find as one where you are firmly convinced that it is somewhere other than where it is. Regards, Nick Maclaren. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
