Le 16/09/2016 13:15, KatolaZ a écrit :
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 12:24:45PM +0200, Didier Kryn wrote:
[cut]
Steve,
I like more and more this idea of separating the tasks:
- pid1 (sysvinit or whatever) performs one-shot startups and basic
supervision (like for getty),
- services needing a sophisticated supervisor use a supervisor which is
only a supervisor, not pid1,
- services which depend on conditions use specialized tools to wait for
these conditions.
That looks like a great plan, but who will supervise the supervisors?
:)
I admit this might seem like a stupid comment, at least at first
sight, but whenever you introduce a supervision system under unix you
most probably end up deciding that the supervision should be delegated
to pid1, since pid1 is the only process able to guarantee that
supervision will be working, whatever happens.
Nobody supervises pid1, OK? So why would the supervisor need to be
supervised? It is supposed to be rock solid. Note that it can be barely
relaunched by sysvinit in the same way as getty.
Didier
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
