On Tue, 23.08.11 13:54, Stephen John Smoogen (smooge@xxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:37, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Tom Callaway (tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >> On 08/22/2011 01:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > >> > I'm pretty sure that we kicked this up to FESCo and they decided to treat > >> > them the same (although the latter may not have come to a formal vote and > >> > only been discussed during their IRC meetings on the overall subject.) Going > >> > back to the quote in this message, though, that was a result of discussions > >> > with Lennart rather than FESCo. > >> > >> Sure. I just want FESCo to either decide that socket-activated services > >> == the same as default enabled services, or that there is some sort of > >> separate whitelisting for socket-activated services. > > > > Thinking about this some more, I don't see why there should be a huge > > distinction here. > > > > A socket-activated service is much the same as a non-socket-activated > > service, in that installing the unit won't activate the service unless > > something calls for it, or the admin/rpm scripts run 'systemctl enable'. So > > A couple of questions: > > 1) Does the above mean that every netscan will start up various > services on systems? The focus of systemd's socket activation is primarily AF_UNIX, not so much AF_INET. And besides CUPS and sshd there are probably not too many services where lazy-loading services really makes sense. You want to lazy-load only those service which are really seldom used (i.e. 1/h or less or so). Also note that CUPS does not listen on AF_INET by default, only AF_UNIX. Also, cups is using Accept=no which means it would be started exactly once and then stay around. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
