From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0 ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms11 with LMTPS id YMlOKIbIwl8jBwAA0tVLHw (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:00:38 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:2:4a6f::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0 with LMTPS id rtb1I4bIwl8vIgAA1q6Kng (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:00:38 +0000 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28797940483 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 22:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:54660 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kj8Gh-00037I-9O for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:00:35 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35958) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kj8GZ-000379-AG for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:00:27 -0500 Received: from box.euandre.org ([46.101.160.115]:52375) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kj8GW-00049L-AM for help-guix@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 17:00:26 -0500 Received: from authenticated-user (box.euandre.org [46.101.160.115]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by box.euandre.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F95DFC3DF; Sat, 28 Nov 2020 19:00:19 -0300 (-03) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=euandre.org; s=mail; t=1606600821; bh=iNcroc1PvHJ8yLb/Xwa+sHDKM/yQ40C8iXa+aHfEXn0=; h=From:To:Cc:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=IB6L56WUfo8VMEHQk8fHTE0Wm0F/aNSZrZjJvU2tgNAIyMFJL5q1zvSQa6xVDaGXb 2tBfnfNYIcnLPveNVGtw1sRJcAcZ7x6QMEfj0lK/1xTqRxqilQGOIfw9ptLZvV40gg oHoArnkmmoMWY58oyrRE/hsxcaUKDe/+dyZSSdPgUwLRrNbW5UowKo/ht2Dmdrsczq xxI9877262lILmgIPj0kKDzRFl+KAvsxIBanz7ohU3NSKI3EsyMweBYc83duBiHh2y yiTIh0sLk61ug/+cLm1X9ypqXA+xu/FVo8xxo7OmtJlo27scYDBTVvsKiPaS5jfuiy E4BuY3FQju3EA== From: EuAndreh To: Christopher Baines Cc: help-guix@gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: Manual: why not restart service over killing the process In-Reply-To: <87blfhtrjk.fsf@cbaines.net> References: <87k0u5msuc.fsf@euandre.org> <87blfhtrjk.fsf@cbaines.net> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2020 18:51:07 -0300 Message-ID: <87h7p9m9pw.fsf@euandre.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Received-SPF: pass client-ip=46.101.160.115; envelope-from=eu@euandre.org; helo=box.euandre.org X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: help-guix@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-guix-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Help-Guix" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Spam-Score: 6.00 X-Spam: Yes Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=fail (headers rsa verify failed) header.d=euandre.org header.s=mail header.b=IB6L56WU; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=euandre.org (policy=quarantine); spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of help-guix-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=help-guix-bounces@gnu.org X-Scanner: ns3122888.ip-94-23-21.eu X-TUID: C1w8EjEsDAYh Christopher Baines writes: > You're sort of right, but you've got the downsides the wrong way around. > > The key bit with the kill call is the SIGHUP but, not that it's not > SIGKILL. The current situation won't kill the NGinx process, but instead > just get it to reload the certificate (at least that's the intention). > > The restart action would "kill" the process, in that it would send it > SIGTERM and the the shepherd would start a new NGinx process, and this > has the potential of interrupting whatever is using NGinx. > > Does that make sense? Hmm, great answer! Makes sense, and the SIGHUP signal really is indeed better for this case. Thanks for the informational response!