On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:08:38 +0100 Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The systemd dictum is that to truly take advantage of parallel > startup, one eliminates orderings as far as possible. Which is where > "socket activation" comes in. Part of "socket activation" is systemd > opening server sockets early, and passing them to the server > processes that get run. Because clients depend from the availability > of the sockets, rather than from the availability of the final > services, clients and servers can actually start in parallel, and the > client is *not* declared as dependent from the *service* being up. Eeeeuuuuuuu! Am I the only one here who is grossed out by the preceding paragraph? A socket activated init has no idea who programmed the server, or what idioms that programmer used. Telling clients "here's your socket, we're sure that it works" sounds a little like "check's in the mail" or "we come in peace." Oh, wait, will there be a systemd compliance sticker given only to servers who do it the systemd way? Nice! Jonathan, am I hallucinating, or does your paragraph basically say that system activation depends on an assumption? Thanks, SteveT Steve Litt June 2015 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence http://www.troubleshooters.com/key