[Mongrel] [ANN] Another mongrel_cluster prerelease 126.96.36.199
bradley at railsmachine.com
Wed Apr 11 14:48:50 EDT 2007
Michael A. Schoen wrote:
> Just a question: why does a cluster restart do a stop and a start,
> rather than an actual restart on each Mongrel? A restart is "nicer", and
> handles much better cases in which a Mongrel can't (or shouldn't) stop
Originally, "cluster::restart" called "mongrel_rails restart".
Unfortunately, this is not reliable for major changes and doing
stop/start is the only way to guarantee that code changes will be applied.
From the mongrel code (rails.rb, line 164):
# Reloads Rails. This isn't too reliable really, but it
# should work for most minimal reload purposes. The only reliable
# way to reload properly is to stop and then start the process.
I don't think it is entirely true to say that restart is "nicer" than
stop/start. 'stop' waits for the current request to finish unless you
use --force. In the context of a cluster, other cluster members will
handle requests during the stop/start cycle.
> The current stop/start approach means that the start often
> fails, because the stop hasn't actually shutdown the Mongrel yet.
It is possible that start will be called before the process is gone.
I'll think about adding some sort of check in cluster::restart to verify
the process is gone before calling start.
If your requests take a long time to complete, you might end up having
other problems unless you have loads of ram and a million mongrels in
> Would it be possible to make doing an actual restart an option? Or
> another command that does a true restart?
No, because it's unreliable.
More information about the Mongrel-users