Maxim Dounin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello!
>
> The above may happen if nginx worker process dies,
> leaving cache
> node marked as being updated. Try looking into
> your logs to see
> if this is the case. That is: if you have alerts
> about "worker
> process exited on signal ..." - you have a
> problem, and this is
> expected result.

I looked in the error log and found exactly what you suggested:
2011/08/09 08:50:15 [alert] 25485#0: cache loader process 25488 exited on signal 9
2011/10/16 17:16:36 [alert] 25509#0: worker process 25510 exited on signal 6
2012/01/16 12:48:13 [alert] 9183#0: worker process 9184 exited on signal 6
2012/01/16 14:19:24 [alert] 9183#0: worker process 11897 exited on signal 6

Shouldn't it be treated as a bug? Do you know what thing could caused sending signal 6 to worker process?

>
> In any case it's good idea to upgrade from long
> unsupported 0.7.x
> branch to at least stable 1.0.x.
>

Yeah, I will probably do it in near future.