Re: dependant services

From: Steve Litt <>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 17:26:05 -0400

On Mon, 08 Jun 2015 21:08:38 +0100
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard <>

> The systemd dictum is that to truly take advantage of parallel
> startup, one eliminates orderings as far as possible. Which is where
> "socket activation" comes in. Part of "socket activation" is systemd
> opening server sockets early, and passing them to the server
> processes that get run. Because clients depend from the availability
> of the sockets, rather than from the availability of the final
> services, clients and servers can actually start in parallel, and the
> client is *not* declared as dependent from the *service* being up.


Am I the only one here who is grossed out by the preceding paragraph?

A socket activated init has no idea who programmed the server, or what
idioms that programmer used. Telling clients "here's your socket, we're
sure that it works" sounds a little like "check's in the mail" or "we
come in peace."

Oh, wait, will there be a systemd compliance sticker given only to
servers who do it the systemd way? Nice!

Jonathan, am I hallucinating, or does your paragraph basically say that
system activation depends on an assumption?



Steve Litt
June 2015 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence
Received on Mon Jun 08 2015 - 21:26:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sun May 09 2021 - 19:44:19 UTC