3 ms·
Then the new born server would have to know what half-done work has been done/exchanged with the client and recover from there. This seems like an impossible ch
by AYBABTME 11y ago
Then the new born server would have to know what half-done work has been done/exchanged with the client and recover from there. This seems like an impossible challenge to me, or at least much more complex than sharing the socket while the old server finishes serving its ongoing connections while accepting no new ones.
- GauntletWizard 11y agoI think you've misunderstood me; You don't need/want to share any connections that the old process has, only the listen socket. You 'steal' the socket, and then any 'accept' calls on the previous owners FD behave as if there were no calls, while new connections show up on the thief's socket FD.
- AYBABTME 11y agoI think that's how it's currently done, but the procedure is issued by the dying server. But yes, maybe that'd be cleaner if it was a proper API call initiated by the new born process.