Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:06:46 -0701 From: Jos Backus <jos@catnook.com> To: stable@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: non-root /var/run files (was Re: Sendmail, smmsp, and pid file) Message-ID: <20020528010708.GB5934@lizzy.catnook.com> In-Reply-To: <200205272342.DAA22488@aaz.links.ru> References: <20020527215031.GA5934@lizzy.catnook.com> <200205272342.DAA22488@aaz.links.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 03:42:31AM +0400, "."@babolo.ru wrote:
> 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.
Possibly, yes.
> And it is simple. And not terrible disturb usual
> agreements. Good candidate for ports?
> as first step to your aim.
I would like to see this integrated into the base OS (a la inetd) to manage
the daemons that are already part of the base OS and are currently not being
managed. First, people have to agree that having some kind of generic service
control manager is a good idea. After all, inetd was written so people would
not have to duplicate its functionality every time. inetd could be run under
this manager btw. If people think this is a bad idea (and consequently think
that pidfiles are the right solution for this type of problem instead of
fork()/wait()) I suppose I (or somebody else) could create a port but my main
goal would have been lost at that point. I would really like some more
discussion on the pros and cons of the basic idea.
> Begin with port.
> I am interested in particular.
> For my hundreds jailed services
See above...
> > The problem with all these homegrown solutions is that they are not portable
> jails not portable now.
> But it is most reliable way now.
Yes, some OS constructs such as jails are non-portable but service monitoring
should not be one of them. The SysV rc.d mechanism, while standardized,
doesn't provide for any kind of monitoring facility. This software fills that
gap, and it would be nice to see the *BSDs at least to incorporate this
functionality.
> The way:
> - make a port of service control manager(s) which writes down
> own pid as usual but handles controled processes himself
I will look into creating a port since you insist :-)
> - give a control step by step (service by service)
I'm not sure what you mean by this?
> - may be at FreeBSD 6..8 time it will be accepted in base
I will have given up long before if it looks like it is going to take that
long to get such basic functionality into FreeBSD.
Thanks for your feedback.
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Santa Clara, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
jos@catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ use Std::Disclaimer;
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?20020528010708.GB5934>