On Fri, 29.11.13 01:57, Mantas Mikulėnas ([email protected]) wrote: > On Nov 29, 2013 1:30 AM, "Cecil Westerhof" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > How does systemd compare to xinitd? > > Did you mean inetd/xinetd? > > systemd's .socket units are very similar (many existing programs, like > sshd, can be moved directly from inetd to systemd -- Accept=yes corresponds > to the 'nowait' type, and Accept=no to 'wait'), but since each . socket > unit starts a corresponding . service unit, you get the same systemd > features as with regular services -- dependencies, resource limits, process > tracking, etc. > > On the other hand, there is no support for things like TCPMUX, SunRPC > services (though Avahi integration was planned once), or some more obscure > xinetd options. > > While both systems support both methods, systemd's socket activation is > more often used to pass the *listener* socket to the service, which still > does all accepting itself (e.g. both DBus and udev start this way); > meanwhile, I see inetd more often used to start one instance per connection.
Also, systemd's socket activation is more generic, as it is not limited to TCP/UDP sockets but can do AF_UNIX too, and fifos, and mqueues and a couple of other things... In fact it's quite extensively used for these kind of local IPC. systemd also has nice functionality like "systemctl list-sockets" and the ability to independently shut down/start up listening sockets, via systemctl commands. There are a couple of things xinetd does we don't, like the sunrpc stuff. Most of that should be more on the exotic side however. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
