Long Lived imapd processes
Earl R Shannon
Earl_Shannon at ncsu.edu
Wed Apr 16 13:09:32 EDT 2003
Ah. <Gilda Radnor>Never mind.</Gilda Radnor>
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.
> 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.
> Earl Shannon
More information about the Info-cyrus