Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 04:49:19AM +0900, heroxbd wrote:
> Helmut Grohne <helmut@subdivi.de> writes:
>
> > By far the more severe issue is socket activation, because it removes
> > the need to spell out service dependencies. We cannot infer these
> > dependencies later on. Instead such a wrapper must implement socket
> > activation in order to work correctly. This is the non-trivial problem.
>
> Interesting point. I am wondering if it is feasible to use x/inetd for
> the socket activation.
Yes, that's the major selling point of inetd, but only for a single
socket services (so no port 80 and port 443 for single apache
process), only for AF_INET or unix (no fifos, no netlink sockets, and
none of the other kinds supported by systemd), only for standard
options (no SO_REUSEPORT, no SO_KEEPALIVE, no IP_TRANSPARENT, queue
sizes, ...). And of course inetd doesn't do any process
supervision. In short, yes, but really no.
Zbyszek
--
they are not broken. they are refucktored
-- alxchk
Reply to: