From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 29025 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2021 09:57:47 -0000 Received: from alyss.skarnet.org (95.142.172.232) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 29 Jan 2021 09:57:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 30955 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jan 2021 09:58:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 30948 invoked from network); 29 Jan 2021 09:58:10 -0000 From: "Laurent Bercot" To: "Casper Ti. Vector" , supervision@list.skarnet.org Subject: Re: Some suggestions on old-fashioned usage with s6 2.10.x Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 09:57:43 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Reply-To: "Laurent Bercot" User-Agent: eM_Client/8.1.1054.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-VR-SPAMSTATE: OK X-VR-SPAMSCORE: -100 X-VR-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfedvgddtlecutefuodetggdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecupfgfoffgtffkveetuefngfdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhhrfgggtgfgsehtqhertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgruhhrvghnthcuuegvrhgtohhtfdcuoehskhgrqdhsuhhpvghrvhhishhiohhnsehskhgrrhhnvghtrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvgfevffeuleegvdektdffteegvdeiieefkeetgfeuheffheelheejhfevueeijeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht >Currently I do not understand the `s6-linux-init-shutdown(d)' way >well, so the old-fashioned way is retained at least for now, given its >simplicity in implementation and seemingly better flexibility. Frankly >it is my intuition that the new way costs more than the old way, but >does not provide that much in return. (Feel free to prove me wrong.) It may cost more *to you*, but there is real and significant value in following existing interfaces that people are familiar with. Being able to just use "reboot" instead of the, uh, slightly less intuitive "s6-svscanctl -6 /run/service" to reboot your machine, is one fewer obstacle on the way to mainstream s6 adoption. Additionally, and maybe more to your liking, there are also technical benefits to never killing s6-svscan. Being able to assume that a supervision tree will be operational at all times, including during shutdown (and even in stage 4!), is really comfortable, it cuts down on a lot of specialcasing, it makes shutdown procedures recoverable, integration into various configurations easier (I'm thinking containers with or without a catch-all logger, for instance), and all-in-all has just less of a "screwdriver and duct tape" feel than a bunch of execline (or rc ;)) scripts. -- Laurent