Thomas Bellman:
> Some init scripts support a 'condrestart' action, that will only
> restart the service if it is already running.
That is one behavior I was trying to avoid. I wanted a service to be
started or restarted iff it had been notified. Neutering the start and
stop commands did this
On 2010-12-21 09:14, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Nigel Kersten:
>> Can you use the "basic" service provider with fully-specified
>> start/stop/restart commands to achieve what you need?
>
> Are you suggesting that I override the start command to a noop, and make
> sure the restart command works in that
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> With the right harmonics a service could be effectively 99%
> downtime and ensure => running would prevent me from finding out.
The puppet logs would report that the service was being started over and
over. I don't use Puppet Dashboard, but perhaps it ca
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 12:14 AM, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Nigel Kersten:
> > Can you use the "basic" service provider with fully-specified
> > start/stop/restart commands to achieve what you need?
>
> Are you suggesting that I override the start command to a noop, and make
> sure the restart comman
Nick Moffitt:
> Are you suggesting that I override the start command to a noop, and make
> sure the restart command works in that scenario? Thinking that over, it
> has potential. I suppose it would refrain from starting a crashed
> service, but it would pass the test in type/provider.rb that's b
Nigel Kersten:
> Can you use the "basic" service provider with fully-specified
> start/stop/restart commands to achieve what you need?
Are you suggesting that I override the start command to a noop, and make
sure the restart command works in that scenario? Thinking that over, it
has potential. I
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Mark Stanislav:
> > Fault tolerant infrastructure should be the point.
>
> Absolutely, but the granularity of nagios and puppet (Every half hour?
> Every ten minutes? Every five?) is simply too coarse to qualify as
> fault-tolerance. Proppi
Mark Stanislav:
> Fault tolerant infrastructure should be the point.
Absolutely, but the granularity of nagios and puppet (Every half hour?
Every ten minutes? Every five?) is simply too coarse to qualify as
fault-tolerance. Propping a broken service back on its feet at this
frequency is worse t
On Dec 20, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Nick Moffitt wrote:
> Mark Stanislav:
>> I would recommend using Nagios event handlers for this if you want
>> Nagios to essentially take the reigns of this problem. That way you
>> will get your alerts and Nagios can react by starting the service
>> again after x numb
Mark Stanislav:
> I would recommend using Nagios event handlers for this if you want
> Nagios to essentially take the reigns of this problem. That way you
> will get your alerts and Nagios can react by starting the service
> again after x number of failures.
Actually, this is kind of the opposite
Nick,
I would recommend using Nagios event handlers for this if you want Nagios to
essentially take the reigns of this problem. That way you will get your alerts
and Nagios can react by starting the service again after x number of failures.
I understand you may want to do this through Puppet fo
I'd like to know the best way to fix the refresh/restart behavior of
Service resources without using ensure => running.
I know that this is an unpopular requirement, but I do not want puppet
to restart dying services before my monitoring system notices. If a
service is fragile, I want to be woken
12 matches
Mail list logo
