# Better error pages?

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-error-pages/55973>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Created:** [18 בינואר,‏ 2017,‏ 4:23pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-error-pages/55973 "2017-01-18T16:23:06Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![JagWaugh](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/jagwaugh/32/69335_2.png) [@JagWaugh](https://meta.discourse.org/u/JagWaugh)\
**Post date:** [18 בינואר,‏ 2017,‏ 5:47pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-error-pages/55973/4 "2017-01-18T17:47:16Z")

</div>

I’ve been thinking about this the last few days as I have been running a test vm and restoring a backup from our live forum. My test vm is a bit weak knee’d, so I’m never quite sure if the reason that I can’t load the webpage is that there is a fault, or if the vm is doing stuff in the background and the web pages aren’t up yet.

./launcher logs app is useful, if you know what to grep for, but it would benefit from something like

./launcher status app showing information like

mail: (disabled, down, up, starting)  
database: (up, down, starting, errors)  
webpages: (up, down, starting, errors)  
nginx: (up, down, starting, errors)

so that one could check from a terminal if things are ok or not.

Even if all the “status app” spit out was “I’m broken” or “I’m busy starting” it would be a help.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/better-error-pages/55973)._