Re: init spawning multiple cf-execd processes at once
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 04:46:37 +1200
Chris Bannister <cbannister@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 10:56:13AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 14:39:16 +0200
> > Jimmy Thrasibule <jimmy.thrasibule@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've added a new line to the /etc/inittab file to monitor the
> > > CFEngine daemon and restart it in case this one dies.
> > >
> > > cfe:2345:respawn:/var/cfengine/bin/cf-execd
> > >
> > > The cf-execd is re-spawned as expected, except the fact that
> > > multiple processes are created at once.
> > >
> > > I therefore have about 20+ cf-execd processes running where I only
> > > need 1.
> > >
> > > Any idea what's causing this and how to solve it?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Jimmy
> >
> > Hi Jimmy,
> >
> > I have absolutely no idea.
> >
> > But the systemd threads have all gotten me thinking: What if I were
> > to start my daemons with djb's daemontools?
>
> Just a heads up:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=752075
Thanks for the heads-up, Chris.
I'm pretty sure the root cause of that entire thread was that its
Original Poster's svscanboot program was not being run at boot,
because Daemontools' default line in /etc/inittab wasn't working for
him. Well yeah, starting daemontools from inittab hasn't worked for me
for years. So, if he's using Daemontools with systemd, I think all he
needs to do is write a systemd unit file for svscanboot, and all will
be well, assuming he's set up Daemontools right.
By the way, apt-cache search couldn't find a tinydns or dnscache
package for Wheezy. That's not surprising, a lot of distros don't. My
personal opinion is that Daemontools, dnscache and tinydns are some of
that category of software better off compiled.
Also, I'm pretty sure there's a fork of dnscache/tinydns that does
ipv6. I'll be switching to that right about the time I upgrade my LAN
to IPV6.
Thanks,
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
Reply to: