Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 13:57:54 -0800 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: Tom Rhodes <trhodes@freebsd.org> Cc: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Importing djb's public domain daemontools? Message-ID: <CAETOPp1WnKyLHcEiARbHExy85MzW9=vU_Z_oJ0anbDL5Fjin%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20120117092422.5f8b0018.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> References: <CAETOPp2Wcww1_fPonru0c6XoX%2BAV_HWoGZKiEMvmY50a5%2ByxRQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F14E291.5090803@FreeBSD.org> <CAETOPp1z0TJecz8kjDvf7trEOS5eogrcqEtDveUYzN=J-SvDNQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F1502CD.90409@FreeBSD.org> <CAETOPp1OYqu2UuaqXdrnCGXYKq%2B=cz_DP3K%2BmHo0zprYo=kpdQ@mail.gmail.com> <4F15284D.7010806@FreeBSD.org> <20120117092422.5f8b0018.trhodes@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:24 AM, Tom Rhodes <trhodes@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 23:50:37 -0800 > Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > > > On 01/16/2012 22:32, Jos Backus wrote: > > > > > I want/need a solution that works in (nearly) all cases and is devoid > of > > > complex code trying to track state that is already represented > elsewhere > > > in the system (the process table and the parent/child process > > > relationship). I want a solution that can reliably handle a crashing > > > server that doesn't clean up its pidfile (the finish script > > > functionality in daemontools-encore provides this), > > > > We get it, you want daemontools. It's in the ports, you can have it. > > > > > and I want a unified > > > control interface for the services running on a box, > > > > rc.d provides that, and service(8) makes that easier. > > > > > a la launchd or what have you. > > > > We've looked at importing launchd, or something like it. It's not a bad > > idea, it's just way more complex than it sounds. And a lot more work > > than "hey, let's import daemontools." > > > > If we were going to do something like this I think we should properly > > spec out what the goals should be, what the available solutions are, and > > what we want our ultimate solution to look like when we're done. > > > > > This isn't about religion but about missing base system > > > functionality - the ability to reliably control services running on a > box. > > > > And my argument is that we already have that in the base, it's just not > > the one you want; and since it's not the one you want you're redefining > > "reliably" to suit your needs. > > Just use/improve my fscd. I meant to import it but have > just ended up getting too busy. Now, I'm way too busy and > would be more than happy to help anyone bring it in. > I looked at fsc briefly but it seems to use pidfiles as well. I also don't like the BUGS section of fscd.8. The daemontools approach doesn't have this issue; if a service under daemontools' control dies for whatever reason, the OS will notify supervise and the finish script (in daemontools-encore) can perform any user-directed action as necessary. Jos > That said, happy new year. :P > > -- > Tom Rhodes > -- Jos Backus jos at catnook.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAETOPp1WnKyLHcEiARbHExy85MzW9=vU_Z_oJ0anbDL5Fjin%2BQ>