On Tue, 8 Jul 2014 17:55:15 -0400 Tom H <tomh0...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we're going to the effort of > replacing init systems and changing our startup scripts, a bare > minimum requirement for me is that we at least address the known > weaknesses of the sysvinit mechanism, namely: > > * Lack of integration with kernel-level events to properly order > startup.
I don't want to be integrated with kernel level events. Give me a thin interface and let me go. I'm a big believer in encapsulation. > * No mechanism for process monitoring and restarting beyond inittab. :-) Maybe start your processes with Daemontools. I'm serious. If a process is that important that it needs to restart the instant it terminates, Daemontools can do that. I don't know what kind of monitoring you envision, but Daemontools has the svc and svok and svstat commands. And the cool thing about Daemontools is you just write a script to run the program from a terminal, wrap it in a couple things, and it's a daemon. Complete with logging. *Text* logging. > * Heavy reliance on shell scripting rather than declarative syntax. I'd consider heavy reliance on shell scripting to be a benefit. Everyone on the planet knows Bash, which by now is a standard. Do we really have to learn yet another "declarative syntax"? > * A fork and exit with PID file model for daemon startup. Definitely a pain in the ass but not a showstopper. SteveT Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140709000628.28486...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
