On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:59:44AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > "Dmitry V. Levin" <[email protected]> writes: > > > + <term><option>-D</option></term> > > + <listitem> > > + <para>Do not detach and do not become a daemon. This allows > > + easy monitoring by service managers like systemd.</para> > > + </listitem> > > + </varlistentry> > > + <varlistentry> > > <term><option>-d</option></term> > > <listitem> > > - <para>Do not fork. Useful for debugging.</para> > > + <para>Do not fork at all. Useful for debugging.</para> > > </listitem> > > </varlistentry> > > <varlistentry> > > I think the difference between -D and -d should be made clearer. > > With -d the server runs in the foreground and accepts a single > connection only and outputs debug infos, right? > > With -D the server runs in the foreground but forks a child for every > connect, right?
Yes. > Also why should systemd care? It uses cgroups to monitor services. Isn't > that one of the advantages of systemd over all the other service > monitors? The "simple" service type (when the service doesn't daemonize) has an advantage: systemd can reliably differentiate between main process and its children. > What I would like to see is socket activation in nbd-server. That way > the service can be started as needed without performance loss (other > than the initial startup time once). That shouldn't be a problem because nbd-server supports inetd mode. -- ldv ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Nbd-general mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nbd-general
