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

[Ian Pilcher]

On 2/8/21 7:52 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
> 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.

I've never heard of this use case.  Can you share an example?

-- 
========================================================================
                  In Soviet Russia, Google searches you!
========================================================================