Laurent Bercot wrote:
> If all this fuss is about socket activation, then you can simply
> forget it altogether. Jonathan was simply mentioning socket activation
> as an alternative to real dependency management, as in "that's what
> some people do". I don't think he implied it was a good idea. Only
> Lennart says it's a good idea. Or people who blindly repeat what
> Lennart says.
Actually, I carefully wrote "opening server sockets early", talking
about the specific mechanism that is employed to weaken client ordering
dependencies upon servers.
As to whether opening server sockets early is a good idea: I'm not in a
hurry to naysay. It achieves the stated effect. Arguably, indeed, it
can be described as *what the system already does* if one has a lot of
daemontools-style services spawned through UCSPI toolsets. They all
start up early and in parallel, opening the sockets very first thing
with something like tcpserver or tcp-socket-listen and *then*
progressing to starting the main server program, thereby allowing
clients to connect and block (rather than fail to connect and abend over
and over) in parallel. So it would be possibly a bit rich for me to
agree that this is a Lennartism. Especially given that I have machines
that do this and have had since before systemd was a twinkle in
upstart's eye. (-:
Received on Mon Jun 08 2015 - 20:40:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC