Re: Reliability of RPC services

[Bas Wijnen]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 10:03:56AM -0400, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> I agree. Also, there is something else that we all agree on: if one
> mechanism can handle two problems with acceptable efficiency, it is a
> mistake to introduce a second mechanism for the second problem.
> 
> So I pose the following test case:
> ...
> If we conclude that we need watchdogs for this (or for something else),
> then I suggest that kernel-supported capability death notice (any kind)
> is unnecessary and should not be implemented.

I disagree.  Although it seems likely that a watchdog (possibly in the form of
the user himself) is needed for servers entering infinite loops, I don't think
this is an adequate solution.  There just isn't anything better, so we'll have
to accept it anyway.  That doesn't mean we must accept it as a solution for
situations where good alternatives exist as well, though.

Thanks,
Bas

-- 
I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature