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

2012-08-21 Thread David Strauss
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > Right now we do offer calls that can match file descriptors against > (parts of) socket addresses. If an app wants to query the current bound > adress it can call getsockname(), but yupp, raw socket API calls are > sometimes a bit ugly.

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

2012-08-21 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Tue, 21.08.12 22:46, Alexander E. Patrakov (patra...@gmail.com) wrote: > > 2012/8/21 Lennart Poettering : > > On Sat, 18.08.12 16:04, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote: > >> Additionally, socket activation could get rather interesting > >> capability if there were a middle-ground be

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

2012-08-21 Thread David Strauss
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > This is supposed to be an > option configured statically by the sysadmin via a configuration file > (a service file?) I'm guessing it would actually be in the .socket file, given that's where you configure it right now to spawn only

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

2012-08-21 Thread David Strauss
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > Just preforking a > fixed number of processes sharing the same listening socket is good > enough in some (most?) cases. It would be tremendously useful even with a completely static number of processes. -- David Strauss | da...@

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

2012-08-21 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
2012/8/21 Alexander E. Patrakov : > 2012/8/21 Lennart Poettering : >> On Sat, 18.08.12 16:04, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote: >>> Additionally, socket activation could get rather interesting >>> capability if there were a middle-ground between single process per >>> connection and one

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

2012-08-21 Thread Alexander E. Patrakov
2012/8/21 Lennart Poettering : > On Sat, 18.08.12 16:04, David Strauss (da...@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

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

2012-08-21 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Sat, 18.08.12 16:04, David Strauss (da...@davidstrauss.net) wrote: Heya, > I'm porting most of the daemons in use at Pantheon to support socket > activation. While Lennart's blog post on it is extremely helpful, I'd > like to share a concrete method that's been working for me with > complex da

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

2012-08-18 Thread David Strauss
I'm porting most of the daemons in use at Pantheon to support socket activation. While Lennart's blog post on it is extremely helpful, I'd like to share a concrete method that's been working for me with complex daemons, including nginx and MySQL. Here's a basic how-to based on what I've tried: 1.