On Tue, 21.08.12 22:46, Alexander E. Patrakov ([email protected]) wrote: > > 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.
I have added this to the TODO list now. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
