Every other piece of software that I can think of, or find running on
one of my machines, that writes its pid to a file in /var/run writes
the pid of its "master process" to /var/run/something.pid, with the
idea that you can then easily signal that master process by doing (for
instance):

kill -HUP `cat /var/run/something.pid`

Pound, however, adds the pid onto the end of the filename.

Is there any particular benefit being derived from using this unusual
convention?  It seems to me to make the whole idea of writing the file
much less useful.

Mike
-- 
I hit an iceberg in my life -- U2

On Monday 08 December 2003 17:13, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> Every other piece of software that I can think of, or find running on
> one of my machines, that writes its pid to a file in /var/run writes
> the pid of its "master process" to /var/run/something.pid, with the
> idea that you can then easily signal that master process by doing (for
> instance):
>
> kill -HUP `cat /var/run/something.pid`
>
> Pound, however, adds the pid onto the end of the filename.
>
> Is there any particular benefit being derived from using this unusual
> convention?  It seems to me to make the whole idea of writing the file
> much less useful.
>
> Mike

It was meant to support installations where you have more than one instance of 
Pound running (for example to support virtual hosts, separate filtering for 
SSL/non-SSL connections, etc).
-- 
Robert Segall
Apsis GmbH
Postfach, Uetikon am See, CH-8707
Tel: +41-1-920 4904

Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch> writes:
> It was meant to support installations where you have more than one
> instance of Pound running (for example to support virtual hosts,
> separate filtering for SSL/non-SSL connections, etc).

I had not thought about the issue of having multiple instances of
Pound running at once.

However, it is my perception that most other packages give you the
option to override the location of the pid file in a configuration
file, thereby allowing the admin to establish unique pid files with
known names for different instances.

Would you consider a patch that allowed this?

Mike
-- 
And don't forget your Ventolin -- Garbage

> Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch> writes:
>> It was meant to support installations where you have more than one
>> instance of Pound running (for example to support virtual hosts,
>> separate filtering for SSL/non-SSL connections, etc).
>
> I had not thought about the issue of having multiple instances of
> Pound running at once.
>
> However, it is my perception that most other packages give you the
> option to override the location of the pid file in a configuration
> file, thereby allowing the admin to establish unique pid files with
> known names for different instances.
>
> Would you consider a patch that allowed this?

I'd like to see this too.

Simon

On Monday 08 December 2003 21:11, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
> Robert Segall <roseg(at)apsis.ch> writes:
> > It was meant to support installations where you have more than one
> > instance of Pound running (for example to support virtual hosts,
> > separate filtering for SSL/non-SSL connections, etc).
>
> I had not thought about the issue of having multiple instances of
> Pound running at once.
>
> However, it is my perception that most other packages give you the
> option to override the location of the pid file in a configuration
> file, thereby allowing the admin to establish unique pid files with
> known names for different instances.
>
> Would you consider a patch that allowed this?
>
> Mike

In general yes. I suggest however that you wait a bit with it - we are working 
on 2.0, which will have a very different config file syntax. We'll keep the 
list posted...
-- 
Your Freya Team