From: Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com>
To: supervision@list.skarnet.org
Subject: Re: External health Check Process
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 20:03:17 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201022200317.52224023@mydesk.domain.cxm> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <eme3c9ca88-1765-4f7a-a2a6-0c06faf88eb2@elzian>
On Thu, 22 Oct 2020 15:34:37 +0000
"Laurent Bercot" <ska-supervision@skarnet.org> wrote:
> Hi Oliver,
>
> The s6-idiomatic way of doing it would be, as you say, to have a
> separate service that calls an external command (the health checker,
> which is daemon-specific) with a timeout and watches the exit code.
> It is trivial to do in shell, which is why I haven't written any
> particular binary for that.
>
> I could add a program that does it for you so you don't have to
> write a 3-line shell script, and a command that creates a s6 service
> directory (or even a s6-rc source definition directory) that watches
> another service using the aforementioned program, it would not be
> hard. However, I am concerned about scope creep, and a common
> criticism I hear from distros is that s6 is "too big" - which is
> unfair considering that integrated init systems providing the same
> level of functionality are 5x-10x bigger, but is really a way of
> saying that there are a lot of exposed binaries with miscellaneous
> functionality and it's difficult to wrap one's head around it.
Laurent, I agree with you. My main attraction to daemontools, runit and
s6 is they're simple and understandable. There's almost nothing I can't
do with them if I get creative with shellscripts. I understand you
insistence on PID1 supervising the real supervisor: That's worth the
added complexity. I understand your desire to order process
instantiation at boot and to intermix run-once and long-run processes,
think that's worth the added complexity, and in fact this is one of the
few things I missed in daemontools and runit.
But most of the other suggestions that in my opinion are just answers
to systemd weenie's "but s6 doesn't have _____" arguments, and don't
add nearly enough functionality or convenience for the complexity, or
just plain size added to the user manual, to justify.
The OP already stated there's a way to do it currently. Why complexify
s6 to do something already doable?
SteveT
Steve Litt
Autumn 2020 featured book: Thriving in Tough Times
http://www.troubleshooters.com/thrive
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-23 0:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-22 12:28 Oliver Schad
2020-10-22 15:34 ` Laurent Bercot
2020-10-22 15:46 ` Casper Ti. Vector
2020-10-23 0:03 ` Steve Litt [this message]
2020-10-23 7:27 ` Oliver Schad
2020-10-23 9:15 ` Steve Litt
2020-10-23 13:44 ` Laurent Bercot
2020-10-23 17:03 ` Steve Litt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20201022200317.52224023@mydesk.domain.cxm \
--to=slitt@troubleshooters.com \
--cc=supervision@list.skarnet.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).