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 5169 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2020 13:45:02 -0000 Received: from alyss.skarnet.org (95.142.172.232) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 23 Oct 2020 13:45:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 1290 invoked by uid 89); 23 Oct 2020 13:45:22 -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 1283 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2020 13:45:22 -0000 From: "Laurent Bercot" To: "Oliver Schad" , supervision@list.skarnet.org Subject: Re: External health Check Process Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2020 13:44:55 +0000 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <20201023092753.517078df@flunder> References: <20201022142829.788f4da5@flunder> <20201022200317.52224023@mydesk.domain.cxm> <20201023092753.517078df@flunder> Reply-To: "Laurent Bercot" User-Agent: eM_Client/8.0.3385.0 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: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrkedtgdeijecutefuodetggdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecupfgfoffgtffkveetuefngfdpqfgfvfenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmnecujfgurhephffvufffkfgjfhhrfgggtgfgsehtqhertddtreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfnfgruhhrvghnthcuuegvrhgtohhtfdcuoehskhgrqdhsuhhpvghrvhhishhiohhnsehskhgrrhhnvghtrdhorhhgqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvgfevffeuleegvdektdffteegvdeiieefkeetgfeuheffheelheejhfevueeijeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhht >I just miss the elegance of the solution: I personally want to model >one service with one s6 service. For me it would mean thinking about a >wrapper around s6 to get that. Maybe I get now the slew thing. The thing is, s6 is a *process supervision* suite, so one s6 "service" is really one long-running process. When you want health checks, you have two long-running processes: your daemon, and your health checker. So two s6 "services" is really the most elegant, most idiomatic and most natural solution. What you could have, on the other hand, is a s6-rc bundle, that=20 contains both your daemon and your health checker: so you would be able to handle both the daemon and the health checker (2 longruns) with a single s6-rc/svctl command, using the name of the bundle. It's probably something that I can add to the next version of s6-rc: a command or an option to automatically add a health checker service to a longrun that is declared in the database, so you wouldn't have to write the health checker longrun manually. How does that sound? >And it's ok to need a wrapper to get useability, but the >advertisement of that should be better on the website that you SHOULD >use that wrapper (and for me this wrapper should be part of the s6 >project). This is indeed a UI problem and I'm still working on it. ;) -- Laurent