3

We're using God to monitor our server processes, and were wondering if we should use something like Monit to make sure God gets up if something unexpected happens.

A quis custodiet ipsos custodes? conundrum :)

Googling for it didn't bring any mentions of this being done, which makes me think it's probably pretty rare.

Has anybody here seen a need for it?

oliverbarnes
  • 2,111
  • 1
  • 20
  • 31
  • I see many questions about deployment on stackoverflow ([like this one](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5452485/how-to-stop-god-from-leaving-stale-resque-worker-processes)), and it's a common task for rails devs. Perhaps this is a question that belongs on both? – oliverbarnes Sep 06 '11 at 23:28
  • 2
    i think it is safe to say that in most rails shops, devs are responsible for deployment as well. I work at a larger shop (15 devs and still hiring), and the closest we have to IT is a devops guy. – Matt Briggs Sep 07 '11 at 00:39

1 Answers1

3

I would put the responsibility of keeping god running on something more core to the OS. On Ubuntu maybe you could use upstart to launch and monitor god. I haven't done this myself however.

The only other benefit of using monit for this seems to be that it might be possible to monitor god's memory usage, which in the past has had some leaks.

jwarchol
  • 1,906
  • 15
  • 12
  • makes sense. so upstart would be closer to the core than using service? – oliverbarnes Sep 12 '11 at 16:22
  • 1
    However, if you're going to use Monit to monitor God, why use God at all? – nickh Oct 29 '11 at 04:35
  • It makes sense because God could crash. You use God and its features to monitor your activities but you only need a little thing to keep God running, not a full featured monitoring system. I also would go to "something more core to the OS". I am surprised that so few people seem interested by the question. – Ludovic Kuty Apr 26 '12 at 07:11