On Sat, 09 Apr 2022 11:36:35 +0000 "Ramarro Marrone" <r...@allmail.net> wrote:
> I too had been surprised by the lack of supervision in OpenBSD. > > Are the daemons included with the > > distributions so incredibly stable that they don't need supervision > > in order to keep the system functional? > > Yes It's just a question of chance and big numbers. So if you're responsible for a big fleet of things and you have costs to handle every failure, it makes sense to have supervision to reduce these costs. Most users with a few machines never observed any failure ever, independent of the operating system and (server) software. If this would be the argument to decide if supervision is necessary, nobody would need it. And yes, the BSD world tries to be conservative compared to Linux and yes, OpenBSD tends to be the most conservative BSDs related to changes. But I think that isn't the most important thing for decision. I.e. your super stable BSD doesn't help against DoS attacks (read as overload), unstable hardware, misconfiguration of services, packet loss, ... Best Regards Oli -- Automatic-Server AG ••••• Oliver Schad Geschäftsführer Hardstr. 46 9434 Au | Schweiz www.automatic-server.com | oliver.sc...@automatic-server.com Tel: +41 71 511 31 11 | Mobile: +41 76 330 03 47
pgpDQIa0ldnGB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
