4 ms·
I'm curious why you wouldn't recommend it. I've never used it myself, but I've been reading about it the past few weeks. The design seems really well done com
by pmahoney 13y ago
I'm curious why you wouldn't recommend it. I've never used it myself, but I've been reading about it the past few weeks. The design seems really well done compared to init.d scripts in the sense that every init script must reimplement daemonization, pid files, etc. (which is helped by examples, start-stop-daemon, etc. but is still a huge and delicate chore in my experience).
Is your objection that daemontools is largely unused / unmaintained and lacks features (such as flapping-avoidance)? Or something else?
Just curious, thanks.
- viraptor 13y agoIt's mostly about the lack of features. No support for cgroups, user switching, adjustable backoff, syslog, etc. Sure - it works, but it's the same thing as with qmail - it's the very minimum that you can call a useful SMTP deaemon. The moment you want any feature on top, you have to implement it yourself. Either one of upstart, systemd, supervisord will give you equivalent solution that has more practical features. Daemontools was good enough a couple of years ago. (I used it then happily) In short - there's nothing wrong with it really, but many alternatives are much better.