neale/homepage
neale
/
homepage
1
0
Fork 0
Code Pull Requests Actions Activity

some touchup to arch-runit

This commit is contained in:
Neale Pickett 2012-12-05 17:35:31 -06:00
parent 4737519c4f
commit 66962f0465
1 changed files with 24 additions and 8 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

32
papers/arch-runit.mdwn
View File

@ -4,17 +4,20 @@ I like how runit manages things,
especially the restarting of dead daemons. especially the restarting of dead daemons.
I was growing tired of sysvinit when systemd started making inroads, I was growing tired of sysvinit when systemd started making inroads,
and when Arch moved to systemd, and when Arch moved to systemd,
I figured it's time to make the switch. I figured it was a good time to make the switch.
I know a lot of people feel very passionately about systemd.
I just prefer to use runit. I know a lot of people feel very passionately about systemd;
I just like runit better.
My wife's computer uses systemd and I have no issues with that. My wife's computer uses systemd and I have no issues with that.
If you want to continue your holy war about systemd, Distribution people have done a swell job making the machine work using systemd,
and that's just fine by me.
If you want to rage about systemd,
there are many web forums available for you to do so. there are many web forums available for you to do so.
What's the advantage? What's the advantage?
--------------------- ---------------------
Runit lets--no, forces--you to write your own startup scripts. Runit lets—no, forces—you to write your own startup scripts.
You can write them in any language you want, You can write them in any language you want,
but Bourne shell is pretty convenient. but Bourne shell is pretty convenient.
I think this is the biggest selling point for me. I think this is the biggest selling point for me.
@ -27,10 +30,23 @@ If a daemon dies, runit restarts it in 2 seconds.
I find that convenient, I find that convenient,
but some prefer for things with problems to be restarted manually. but some prefer for things with problems to be restarted manually.
Runit wants daemons to run in the foreground.
Having written many daemons,
I like this philosophy a lot.
I never understood why the "fork twice" hack needed to be duplicated in every daemon ever;
Runit takes care of that for you.
Runit encourages things to log to stdout (or stderr), Runit encourages things to log to stdout (or stderr),
and keeps a log file for each service. instead of syslog or custom logging code.
It also runs one log program per service. Writing to stderr is also very convenient from the standpoint of the daemon's author.
That log program can be anything you want. It's a natural way to provide information to the user,
and all that's needed for "debugging mode" is to launch the daemon at the command line
instead of from runit.
stdout from a service is sent to stdin on a log service,
which runit also keeps track of.
That log service can be anything you want:
`svlogd` does a pretty good job timestamping lines,
and it also rotates logs automatically without needing to stop and start the daemon.
Peculiarities of my setup Peculiarities of my setup