On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 12:29:07PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 24/05/13 11:29, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > > As far as I understand (correct me if I am wrong), systemd instead of > > counting/tracking forks uses cgroups to keep track of the started > > processes.
> systemd uses cgroups to track "which processes are part of this > service?", which means the services may be configured to do traditional > Unix daemonization (double-fork), or remain "in the foreground", > whichever is easier. > One advantage of leaving the services forking is that some daemons > effectively use the fork() as a signal that they are ready for use > (because the point at which they fork and go to the background is the > point at which their sysvinit-style init script would exit). For a > "simple" daemon that doesn't fork, init can't necessarily tell when it's > actually ready, which can be a problem when doing aggressive > parallelization. Definitely. This is why upstart offers the 'expect fork' and 'expect daemon' options in the first place, and why this limitation in using fork/daemon is important for us to fix. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
