On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:50:31PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 22:39:18 Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
* Arrange for database servers to start before Apache
I wouldn't like that. We would be removing possible parallelism (in a far far
away future when we would be using
I appear to have utterly failed to proof-read this before sending.
I shouln't attempt mailing list posts at the end of a work day.
Apologies.
On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 07:00:38PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
In other words, although the notion of a sequencing is unlikely
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:06:28PM -0500, Matt Zagrabelny wrote:
[...]
Okay, there are two possible resolutions to this problem which spring
to mind:
* Arrange for database servers to start before Apache
I'm not sure if this is feasible, but it seems to me that it's likely
to be generally
On Thursday 02 September 2010 00:20:04 Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
come to replace it, be it upstart or systemd or whatever trendy thing at
the time for squeeze+N) about peculiar inter-package dependencies on a
package by package basis without hardcoding this to init scripts.
I can imagine
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:17:34PM +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
I'm using RT 3.8 with apache2 via mod_perl, MySQL is used as a database
backend. When the server is booted using insserv, apache2 starts long
before MySQL and for some reason some bit of RT tries to access the
MySQL server,
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Dominic Hargreaves d...@earth.li wrote:
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 10:17:34PM +0400, Konstantin Khomoutov wrote:
I'm using RT 3.8 with apache2 via mod_perl, MySQL is used as a database
backend. When the server is booted using insserv, apache2 starts long
before
On Tuesday 31 August 2010 22:39:18 Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
* Arrange for database servers to start before Apache
I wouldn't like that. We would be removing possible parallelism (in a far far
away future when we would be using this) at boot.
* Arrange for RT to be more robust when a
7 matches
Mail list logo
