| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 06:51:28 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> But nonetheless, there's still the risk that the KILL has |
| 6 |
>> destroyed the application database (sort of - more correctly: |
| 7 |
>> that the application and its database was in a "non consistent" |
| 8 |
>> state when it received the signal). |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Yes, but in that case the application has already failed, otherwise it |
| 11 |
> would have shut down on TERM. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Maybe it would have recoverd in "due time". The chances are pretty |
| 14 |
slim, but they are >0. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> Emergency shutdowns aren't about |
| 17 |
> eliminating any problems in the case of a serious system hang, they are |
| 18 |
> about minimising such damage. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Absolutely correct! But Liviu asked, if there's a potential risk |
| 21 |
to the system. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
My answer is: Yes, there is! It is pretty low (for the reasons |
| 24 |
you mentioned), but it is not 0. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Michael |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives