[systemd-devel] Antw: [EXT] Re: Still confused with socket activation

[Reindl Harald]

Am 08.02.21 um 14:52 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
> On Mon, 2021-02-08 at 11:27 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> this is *not* what systemd-sockets are for
>> they are for service is started at the first connect
> 
> This is wrong. Socket units are useful completely independently of
> whether the unit is started on demand, and it's a good idea to use them
> even for services that are always started on boot. They allow
> configuring listening ports in a consistent manner, and make it
> possible to avoid direct dependencies between services. The latter
> pretty much avoids all further issues with ordering: once you've
> started all the sockets, you can freely start all the services in
> parallel or in whatever order - a depended-on service process starting
> later is never a problem, since requests will just get queued in the
> socket and will work fine once the service is fully up. In principle,
> you could even have two services which both require the other, as long
> as the exact requests they make will not result in a deadlock. In
> almost any setup at least the improved parallelism improves performance
> at boot or when otherwise starting services.

that's all nice but when you want what the OP wnats it makes no sense 
and as long as my machines are boot in 3-12 seconds added complexity 
needs to find a problem to solve

the point is: when your configuration can't handle sockets or you can't 
handle them just don't use them for the sake of using them with no 
measureable benefit

it can't boot fast enough to compensate all the "fuck it i said stop the 
service" of the past 10 years and as long systemd is not smart enough 
that "systemctl stop x" stops both, the service and the socket unit that 
makes no fun at all