Le 16/09/2016 18:32, Steve Litt a écrit :
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:24:45 +0200
Didier Kryn <k...@in2p3.fr> wrote:
Steve,
I like more and more this idea of separating the tasks:
- pid1 (sysvinit or whatever) performs one-shot startups and
basic supervision (like for getty),
sysvinit, right? Spawn your gettys and run the rc files, which run the
supervisor. Is that what you mean?
Rather the following: sysvinit spawns your gettys and your
supervisor, and runs the rc files.
- services needing a sophisticated supervisor use a supervisor
which is only a supervisor, not pid1,
This could be daemontools-encore or runit or s6.
- services which depend on conditions use specialized tools to
wait for these conditions.
Does OpenRC do the conditional starts?
The architecture I had in mind looks something like this:
.--------. .----------------.
|sysvinit| .------. run as |runit supvisr or|
| PID1 |-----|OpenRC|----------|daemontools or |
`--------' `------' daemon |s6 supervisor |
| | `----------------'
|-getty1 `-most processes |-httpd
|-getty1 |-sshd
|-... `-Other respawnables
`-getty6
Yes, or the following, where runit etc is respawned automatically
by sysvinit.
.--------.
|sysvinit|
| PID1 | .----------------.
`--------' |runit supvisr or| |-httpd
|---------|daemontools or |---|-sshd
| |s6 supervisor | |-other supervised servers
| `----------------'
|-getty1
|-getty1
|...
|-getty6 .-------------------.
| | whatever |
|---------| launch-and-forget |---|-other services
| rc |
`-------------------'
But this makes sense only if the supervisor (runit, s6, etc) has a smarter
way to keep track of its children than wait(). For example, it could keep some
named pipe connection to each of them. I haven't explored the ways to do that,
though.
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
