[Mongrel] [ANN] Another mongrel_cluster prerelease 220.127.116.11
rgkaufman at gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 11:04:45 EDT 2007
Though that is a good idea in general, it doesn't get the job done
in this case. The problem is that stop returns successfully as soon
as it sends the signal to the mongrel processes. It goes out, says
"hey please stop what your doing" and then returns, telling you "I
told them", not "they have stopped". It seems to me like what we need
is to have a --wait option. The idea would be that mongrel_rails stop
--wait would not return until it had confirmed that all the processes
had truly stopped what they where doing. It would be nice if wait
took an optional timeout argument.
I see two benefits to this solution. One it solves the problem
we're discussing here. Your cluster reset could be composed of stop
--wait and start commands. Second it will allow your system shutdown
or deployments to wait for every doggy to finish up and gracefully
return your maintenance page instead of just timing out.
On 4/12/07, Wayne E. Seguin <wayneeseguin at gmail.com> wrote:
> This may be a bit simple, but couldn't you concatenate the commands
> in a system call using either ';' (or &&), doesn't this (or both?) of
> them require that the previous command finishes before executing the
> current one?
> What I'm thinking is that you can do something like:
> `mongrel_rails stop... ; mongrel_rails start`
> To accomplish the correct wait for the graceful stop?
> I hope I'm not way off here as I just joined the discussion.
> On Apr 11, 2007, at 19:56 , Michael A. Schoen wrote:
> > Bradley Taylor wrote:
> >> Reviewing the code (Zed correct me if I'm wrong), stop and restart
> >> both
> >> call the same stop method. The graceful handling of an in-progress
> >> request is the same.
> > Yes, and that handling works for me. The problem is that a stop;start
> > fails when the stop takes a bit, whereas a stop-with-restart will
> > always
> > be just fine.
> > What happens now when I do a cluster restart is that some of my
> > Mongrels
> > end up just dead, as they actually stop (gracefully) after the
> > start has
> > already been called for. I could resolve this using a forced stop, but
> > I'm looking for a more, not less, graceful process.
> >> Restart also has some funky semantics when used in a cluster where it
> >> reuses the the command line arguments. This means that you can't
> >> modify
> >> the cluster configuration and apply the changes with a restart. The
> >> standard behavior of a linux (freebsd, etc) service is that
> >> configuration changes are reread on restart (apache, mysql,etc).
> >> So for
> >> the purposes of mongrel_cluster, restart == stop;start. Running a
> >> single
> >> mongrel with its own configuration file would behave as expected.
> > Ah, so I understand why you made the change to have a cluster
> > restart do
> > a stop;start. We don't change the cluster configuration, so we aren't
> > hit by that problem.
> > But would it be possible to get an alternative command added that does
> > do an actual restart? If not, no worries, I'll hack it in on my end.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mongrel-users mailing list
> > Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-users
> Mongrel-users mailing list
> Mongrel-users at rubyforge.org
More information about the Mongrel-users