Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 28 May 2002 03:42:31 +0400 (MSD)
From:      "."@babolo.ru
To:        jos@catnook.com
Cc:        stable@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: non-root /var/run files (was Re: Sendmail, smmsp, and pid file)
Message-ID:  <200205272342.DAA22488@aaz.links.ru>
In-Reply-To: <20020527215031.GA5934@lizzy.catnook.com> from "Jos Backus" at "May 27, 2 02:50:09 pm"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jos Backus writes:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:36:00AM +0400, "."@babolo.ru wrote:
> > I have a lot of troubles with djb's tools in jail environment:
> > they are unreliable.
> Huh? What is the problem? While the license causes plenty of problems I have
> yet to see the programs themselves cause any. Now they may not be a natural
> fit to what you are trying to do in this case but that doesn't invalidate the
> idea of a service control manager in general - only perhaps the daemontools
> implementation for your particular application.
There are usual retrieval errors in jail+nullfs
on startup I never see without jail+nullfs.
May be it is the reason for daemontools not to work
reliable when nonexpected errors occur - but
I am not shure because a lack of time.

> > Are you sure that http://www.io.com/~manoj/file/mktool-0.0.7.tar.gz
> > (are you mean this one?) is better?
> It's hackable, which compared to daemontools is a big plus.  And the author
> has said he is willing to add some more improvements and documentation.
And it is simple. And not terrible disturb usual
agreements. Good candidate for ports?
as first step to your aim.

> > I do not find docs or mans and am not sure that
> > it is worth-while to dig in thist code instead of
> > simple shell scripts (as in ports/38593 - that is
> > my way to service control manager)
> Re: docs, see above. If there's sufficient interest I can prod the author or
> write some myself.
Begin with port.
I am interested in particular.
For my hundreds jailed services

> The problem with all these homegrown solutions is that they are not portable
jails not portable now.
But it is most reliable way now.

> and lack the necessary features to be of general use, among others.
Yes.

> I think first there needs to be consensus that having some sort of service
> control manager in the base OS is a good idea. Then we can look into possible
> candidates. Given the long tradition that pidfiles have in UNIX this is
> probably an uphill battle, even though I think there are plenty of reasons to
> consider them the result of poor engineering.
The way:
 - make a port of service control manager(s) which writes down
   own pid as usual but handles controled processes himself
 - give a control step by step (service by service)
 - may be at FreeBSD 6..8 time it will be accepted in base

-- 
@BABOLO      http://links.ru/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200205272342.DAA22488>