4 ms·
A better way of course is not to halt on assertion, but to limit the scope of any potential problem in a such way, that an assertion could only crash a tiny iso
by zzzcpan 9y ago
A better way of course is not to halt on assertion, but to limit the scope of any potential problem in a such way, that an assertion could only crash a tiny isolated thing and trigger its restart, possibly not impacting availability whatsoever. You still get your sanity, but also get users happy with a rock solid thing that just works even in a presence of errors.
The idea is known as supervision trees.
- Fnoord 9y agoI think a good tradeoff could be that with containers, the individual containers are hardened, whereas the kernel's host OS is not. The host OS doesn't do much except keeping the containers running.
- _asummers 9y agoErlang VM works this way, if someone's looking for a program that does this in practice. They have the mantra "let it crash". Something higher than you is in a better position to handle your error and restart you to a known good state.