[Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Index] [Thread Next]
Bryan Stansell bryan@conserver.com
Sat, 15 Dec 2001 12:43:43 -0800
The problem with using a sleep() in the code is that the process does just that - it sleeps. Each process is managing 16 consoles (by default) and if it sleeps, all activity for those 16 consoles and anyone connected to any of those consoles stops for the length of the sleep(). So, just putting a sleep in there doesn't work well. There is a timer that goes off every minute that's used to produce the timestamps in the logfiles. It should be possible to use that mechanism, but, again, I haven't put much thought into the impact of inserting code there either. So, yep, should be possible. Hmm...maybe it would be as simple as putting it in the timer loop. I guess the only other bit I'd like to see is a counter of auto-retries and if that hits two or three, it stops trying to reconnect. But, that should be easy as well. Hmm...I'm feeling inspired... :-) Bryan On Sat, Dec 15, 2001 at 12:05:45PM -0800, Jim Gottlieb wrote: > On 2001-12-15 at 01:16, Bryan Stansell (bryan@conserver.com) wrote: > > > I'm beginning to believe that the ConsInit is the right thing to do and > > that the number of folks experiencing the random high load/respawn > > problem is very small compared to the number of folks that would > > benefit from automatically reconnecting on a disconnect. > > Probably true. How about having it try to reconnect once a minute > (sleep 60 between retries). That way, it will try to reconnect, but > won't get into a tight resource-hogging loop. > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > users@conserver.com > https://www.conserver.com/mailman/listinfo/users