Phone
From: Laurent Bercot<mailto:ska-supervis...@skarnet.org>
Sent: 7/27/2014 8:39 AM
To: supervision@list.skarnet.org<mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org>
Subject: Re: initialization vs supervision
On 27/07/2014 15:30, Joan Picanyol i Puig wrote:
> N
On 27/07/2014 15:30, Joan Picanyol i Puig wrote:
No magic wand here, I just see it as scripts all the way down...
Of course it's scripts. But those scripts are not portable. You can't
make a tmpfs on FreeBSD the way you make one on Linux.
Creating and mounting a tmpfs and bringing up the ne
* Laurent Bercot [20140727 00:53]:
> On 26/07/2014 20:47, Joan Picanyol i Puig wrote:
> >What "tricky" responsabilities are you thinking of for /sbin/init that
> >would make it Linux specific?
>
> s6-svscan wants a read-write directory to run in, and another to
> run its logger in. I definitely
On 26/07/2014 20:47, Joan Picanyol i Puig wrote:
What "tricky" responsabilities are you thinking of for /sbin/init that
would make it Linux specific?
s6-svscan wants a read-write directory to run in, and another to
run its logger in. I definitely want to support read-only root
filesystems, and
-proprietary at all costs.
Sent from my Windows Phone
From: Joan Picanyol i Puig<mailto:lists-supervis...@biaix.org>
Sent: 7/26/2014 12:48 PM
To: supervision@list.skarnet.org<mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org>
Subject: Re: initialization vs supervisio
* Laurent Bercot [20140723 23:17]:
> On 23/07/2014 20:16, Wayne Marshall wrote:
> >In the best of un!x traditions, a stronger system may in fact be one
> >that recognizes the fundamental differences between the two
> >functions, and provides purpose-specific solutions for each of them.
>
> This i
g>
Subject: Re: initialization vs supervision
Hello James,
> Stage-1's purpose is basically to mount file systems, load drivers,
> check the file system, and load the disks. Now first off, yes, I
> could move udev into stage-2, but there-in lies an issue, what would
> then require a red
Hello James,
> Stage-1's purpose is basically to mount file systems, load drivers,
> check the file system, and load the disks. Now first off, yes, I
> could move udev into stage-2, but there-in lies an issue, what would
> then require a redrafting of many service scripts to check for udev,
> then
Hello Laurent,
> The pstrees that are posted in this thread show a nice amount of
> supervised services, and also some services that are *not* supervised;
> the reason for this is probably that the unsupervised services are
> started in /etc/runit/1, when runsvdir isn't yet started. This is a sh
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 10:54:53AM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> My point is that if it's so much easier and tempting to treat an early
> service differently, if you have to jump through hoops to get something
> supervised, then we got the design wrong, and I'm not satisfied with it.
[cut]
>
On 24/07/2014 02:49, Alex Efros wrote:
udevd is only service started from /etc/runit/1. And, honestly, I think
it's much simpler to just kill it at end of /etc/runit/1 and (re-)start it
as a normal service when /etc/runit/2 will be executed, than try to
fork/delay parts of /etc/runit/1 - because
I doubt we could really benefit from udev being ran in stage-2, but I would
like to try it, however this is at the butt-end of my to-do-list.
> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2014 04:49:48 +0300
> From: power...@powerman.name
> To: supervision@list.skarnet.org
> Subject: Re: initialization vs
Hi!
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 01:42:19AM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> > Now granted some things are not able to be supervised such as udev on
> > my end. But honestly, does udev really require supervision?
> Yes, it does - why wouldn't it ? Or, if it doesn't, why would any
> other service ?
Any o
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 01:42:19 +0100
Laurent Bercot wrote:
> On 23/07/2014 23:45, James Powell wrote:
> > Now granted some things are not able to be supervised such as udev
> > on my end. But honestly, does udev really require supervision?
>
> Yes, it does - why wouldn't it ? Or, if it doesn't,
gt;
Sent: 7/23/2014 5:42 PM
To: supervision@list.skarnet.org<mailto:supervision@list.skarnet.org>
Subject: Re: initialization vs supervision
On 23/07/2014 23:45, James Powell wrote:
> Now granted some things are not able to be supervised such as udev on my end.
> But honestly, does ude
On 23/07/2014 23:45, James Powell wrote:
Now granted some things are not able to be supervised such as udev on my end.
But honestly, does udev really require supervision?
Yes, it does - why wouldn't it ? Or, if it doesn't, why would any other
service ?
We don't supervise services for the h
ut as needed, and load and check daemons and dependencies as
needed.
> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 22:18:26 +0100
> From: ska-supervis...@skarnet.org
> To: supervision@list.skarnet.org
> Subject: Re: initialization vs supervision
>
> On 23/07/2014 20:16, Wayne Marshall wrote:
> &
On 23/07/2014 20:16, Wayne Marshall wrote:
In the best of un!x traditions, a stronger
system may in fact be one that recognizes the fundamental
differences between the two functions, and provides purpose-specific
solutions for each of them.
I absolutely agree with this, as with all the rest of
Hello Wayne,
> Initialization vs Supervision
Thanks for the detailed response. From my personal experience, I also
found it easier to maintain/understand when I separated initialization
from supervision.
Thanks again,
Joe
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Initialization vs Supervision
In recent discussions on this forum and elsewhere, there is
a tendency to conflate start-up initialization with service
supervision. The historical basis for this tendency is found
in various versions of /sbin/init that do in fact coalesce some
aspects of
20 matches
Mail list logo
