Long Lived imapd processes

[Earl R Shannon]

Hello,

Ah. <Gilda Radnor>Never mind.</Gilda Radnor>

Thanks.

Regards,
Earl Shannon

Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
> As I said, you can SIGTERM imapd processes _as long as those imapd
> process are connected to a client_. If they aren't connected to a
> client, _it won't work_.
> 
> In the future, imapds will catch SIGTERM and exit gracefully.
> 
> In the slightly further future, we'll apply some variation of a
> process accounting patch.
> 
> Larry
> 
>    Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:01:37 -0400
>    From: Earl R Shannon <Earl_Shannon at ncsu.edu>
> 
>    I tried the SIGTERM kill method and I am concerned about a behavior I'm 
>    seeing. If the last imapd process is removed from the server the master 
>    process does not start a new one. The master will accept a connection 
>    but it cannot give it to an imapd process. The master thinks at least 
>    one must still be around somewhere.
> 
>    OK. Doctor it hurts when I do this. Doctor says don't do that. Fine.
> 
>    But, seems to me if it could happen then the master should be prepared 
>    to handle the situation and it isn't. Should I consider this a bug?
>    Things happen and it sounds like at least one person on the list is 
>    sending kill -SIGTERM ( kill -TERM for us Solaris users ) to their imapd 
>    processes. This seems to be leaving the master with bad info based on 
>    the behavior I'm seeing.
> 
>    Regards,
>    Earl Shannon
> 
> 
> 
> 
>