4 ms·

I appreciate the sentiment, but if you think about it... If a process can't be killed arbitrarily at any point during its execution then it's definitely not beh

I appreciate the sentiment, but if you think about it... If a process can't be killed arbitrarily at any point during its execution then it's definitely not behaving in a "transactional" way (as in: sort-of-like-ACID-except-the-durability-may-not-be-that-important-as-long-as-consistency-and-atomicity-is-preserved). You really want processes to behave "transactionally", otherwise you'll be really really screwed when the power/UPSs fail. (I'm ignoring the fact that a "kill -9" actually still flushes buffers and such, but that's tangential to the point I'm trying to make.) EDIT: In summary: I'd rather find out sooner rather than later :).

pepve 12y ago
It seems you still don't want the advertised tool though, because you prefer to just send SIGKILL immediately. Environments differ though, the software I run will do worse on power failures/SIGKILL than on SIGTERM. I would prefer it to be more resillient, embrace a crash-only design, etc. But my world suffers from practicalities, so I deal with it by being careful with SIGKILL.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- hyperpape 12y ago
  What they want is a fuzzer: send SIGTERM and/or SIGKILL with arbitrary durations between them.