2012/8/21 Lennart Poettering <[email protected]>: > On Sat, 18.08.12 16:04, David Strauss ([email protected]) 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 like >> Twisted Python and node.js have built their own wrappers to do this in >> various kludgy ways that involve a master process opening the main >> socket and then passing file descriptors or other structures into the >> fork()ed processes or using separate "load balancers" to spread the >> requests out. This might be totally out of scope for systemd, though. > > Hmm, so this would mean systemd would spawn multiple instances of a > service binary, but pass all of them the listening socket? Interesting > idea. We could probably do that, but we couldn't dynamically know how > many worker processes to spawn, since we wouldn't know how much entries > are queued unprocesse on the socket... Or maybe, there is an > ioctl/sockopt for that? Definitely an interesting idea...
No need to configure this dynamically. This is supposed to be an option configured statically by the sysadmin via a configuration file (a service file?), just like the ServerLimit and MaxClients apache2 config directives. And the whole things looks very much like apache2 preform MPM. -- Alexander E. Patrakov _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
