[systemd-devel] Thoughts on adapting daemons to use socket activation

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 21.08.12 22:46, Alexander E. Patrakov (patrakov at gmail.com) wrote:

> 
> 2012/8/21 Lennart Poettering <lennart at poettering.net>:
> > On Sat, 18.08.12 16:04, David Strauss (david at davidstrauss.net) wrote:
> >> Additionally, socket activation could get rather interesting
> >> capability if there were a middle-ground between single process per
> >> connection and one process for all connections. Frameworks like
> >> Twisted Python and node.js have built their own wrappers to do this in
> >> various kludgy ways that involve a master process opening the main
> >> socket and then passing file descriptors or other structures into the
> >> fork()ed processes or using separate "load balancers" to spread the
> >> requests out. This might be totally out of scope for systemd, though.
> >
> > Hmm, so this would mean systemd would spawn multiple instances of a
> > service binary, but pass all of them the listening socket? Interesting
> > idea. We could probably do that, but we couldn't dynamically know how
> > many worker processes to spawn, since we wouldn't know how much entries
> > are queued unprocesse on the socket... Or maybe, there is an
> > ioctl/sockopt for that? Definitely an interesting idea...
> 
> No need to configure this dynamically. This is supposed to be an
> option configured statically by the sysadmin via a configuration file
> (a service file?), just like the ServerLimit and MaxClients apache2
> config directives. And the whole things looks very much like apache2
> preform MPM.

I have added this to the TODO list now.

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.