Long Lived imapd processes

Earl R Shannon Earl_Shannon at ncsu.edu
Wed Apr 16 13:06:59 EDT 2003


I'm sorry, but I'm just a little confused. Let me re-word what you said
and make sure I understand it properly.

You SHOULD only kill a process that has an active connection on it.

As opposed to the CAN I read below, because I CAN kill all the imapd
processes. Been there done that. My point is, if it is should, might the
going away of the last imapd process and master not starting a new one
be considered a bug?  That is what I'm seeing happen.

Earl Shannon

Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2003, Earl R Shannon wrote:
>>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.
> You can only kill a process that has an active connection on it.  Killing
> the last remaining process is not killing a process with an active
> connection, its killing the process that is currently in accept().
> -Rob
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
> Rob Siemborski * Andrew Systems Group * Cyert Hall 207 * 412-268-7456
> Research Systems Programmer * /usr/contributed Gatekeeper

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list