[Info-vax] New OpenSSL update from HP

[lists at openmailbox.org]

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:59:24 +0000 (UTC)
Simon Clubley via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:

> On 2015-06-15, <lists at openmailbox.org> <lists at openmailbox.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2015 13:33:26 +0000 (UTC)
> > Simon Clubley via Info-vax <info-vax at rbnsn.com> wrote:
> >> In such a case you need a mechanism to identify all these processes
> >> and kill them and you can't rely on the primary web server process
> >> sending a shutdown message to the detached process; the detached
> >> process may be stuck and not responding to application initiated
> >> messages.
> >
> > I understood that part but not being familiar with the environment I
> > didn't understand why doing this correctly would be difficult or
> > unusual.
> >
> > Why couldn't the primary server send a message to the detached
> > processes? Is there not a signaling mechanism and known best practices
> > appropriate for this sort of thing?
> >
> 
> Most of the time this would work ok, but any such design has to consider
> the possibility that the detached process is no longer processing
> messages from the main web server process due to logic problems.
> 
> With subprocesses (which are processes which live within the parent's
> process tree) that doesn't matter because any such stuck subprocess would
> be killed by VMS when the parent process exits. However, detached
> processes, which are standalone processes not associated with the process
> which created them, would not.

Gotcha. We have a similar situation in MVS but there are best-practices for
doing this sort of thing and there shouldn't be anything new in designing a
system like that either way. Thanks for clarifying.

-- 
Please DO NOT COPY ME on mailing list replies. I read the mailing list.
RSA 4096 fingerprint 7940 3F02 16D3 AFEE F2F8  ACAA 557C 4B36 98E4 4D49