Le 05/11/12, Dave Reisner <d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 10:01:11AM -0600, Leonid Isaev wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was wondering whether there is a guideline regarding using > > Type=forking daemons in systemd units. For instance, if a daemon > > supports a cmdline switch to run in foreground isn't it better to > > use this argument in ExecStart? > > Personally, I was bitten by this with haveged.service which > > fails on shutdown and whose unit has Type=forking, but I also > > noticed that ntpd is allowed to fork. Both of them support > > foreground operation (haveged -F and ntpd -n respectively)? > > Essentially, it comes down to ordering of other daemons. > > It's always going to be some trifling amount faster to start a daemon > in the foreground because systemd assumes it to be alive as soon as it > starts. Conversely, a Type=forking daemon is only considered alive > only once the parent process has exited. > > What this means is that while you might be able to start a daemon > which normally forks in non-forking mode, you can't guarantee that > daemons which rely on the non-forking daemon can be reliably started, > since various listeners or other channels may not be established in > time. > > The ideal solution is to implement sd_notify() and use Type=notify, or > full blown socket activation should it be appropriate for the daemon. > Both of these cases allow for essentially fire-and-forget style > startup with guarantees of availability for ordering. > > Of course, if you don't think you ever need to order anything on a > given daemon, then Type=simple is just fine. > > HTH, > d I commented a bug about this : https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/31309 Is it safe to assume that if a daemon is meant to be run in foreground (i.e default behaviour, without options) , it is safe to run it this way in the corresponding service file ? -- radio ianux - http://ianux.fr/
