| 1 |
On Fri, 18 May 2012 08:56:03 +0100 |
| 2 |
Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> What's wrong with init respawn or supervise and/or monit? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
sysvinit: |
| 7 |
- adding/removing/stopping a service requires editing inittab or ad-hoc |
| 8 |
solutions |
| 9 |
- no integrated logging |
| 10 |
- no dependency tracking system |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
monit: |
| 13 |
- depends on external systems like OpenRC => might fail to restart |
| 14 |
a service due to possible bugs in its complicated init script |
| 15 |
- separate configuration files => more work to write them and keep in |
| 16 |
sync with OpenRC configuration |
| 17 |
- does pid file inspection and periodic signalling instead of wait(2) |
| 18 |
=> racy: might fail to restart a crashed service if its pid file |
| 19 |
contains a pid of some running but unrelated process |
| 20 |
- requires extra configuration not to restart a service when it was |
| 21 |
temporarily shut down by administrator |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
supervise (daemontools) is like runit. There's nothing wrong with it, |
| 24 |
yet it has some limitations that minit was designed to overcome: |
| 25 |
http://www.fefe.de/minit/minit-linux-kongress2004.pdf |
Archives