On 03/06/2017 10:02 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
Dumb-init is more like nohup, or tee, or strace. It's for processes (most of them) that don't deal with being PID 1. So jumping through hoops to write a unit file feels like you're saying "do it the hard way" when I know perfectly well that I don't need to do it the hard way.I get it.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 10:00 PM, Clayton Coleman <ccoleman redhat com <mailto:ccoleman redhat com>> wrote:
Please do not tell me that I want to write a unit file when the
*entire* ecosystem takes command lines just fine. I have hundreds
of dockerfiles that have entry points - why do I need to write
unit files for them? I have command line tools that generate
docker images... with command lines - why would I want to write
unit files for them?
Also, dumb-init is not an init system. It's a signal proxy.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Scott McCarty <smccarty redhat com
<mailto:smccarty redhat com>> wrote:
I am skeptical of any "resource" argument against systemd. Are
you seeing some actually impact to performance that is causing
problems? As for unit files, they are rediculously easy. Much
easier than figuring out how to start a daemon properly by
reading documentation.
I don't have a strong opinion for CentOS/Fedora. But for RHEL,
I think multiple init systems will just generate more
technical questions from customers and eat up more sales
resources explaining when people should use what. Options are
great, but confusing, that's why Apple got rid of a lot of them...
On 03/06/2017 09:48 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
Zero overhead, defunct process management, proper logging,
simplicity, no moving parts, no additional unit file (I
don't have unit files).
Turn it around - if I have the command line
"ansible-playbook ...", what does systemd get me?
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Eric Paris
<eparis redhat com <mailto:eparis redhat com>
<mailto:eparis redhat com <mailto:eparis redhat com>>> wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 21:22 -0500, Clayton Coleman wrote:
> They'd be really helpful for cases where you don't
want full blown
> systemd, but want a long running container that
needs to reap
> processes. I don't know that one or the other
matters, I have a
> slight bias for dumb-init in terms of signal
rewriting (a few cases
> might need that).
>
> Anyone using these today?
What does dumb-init or tini get me that systemd doesn't?
--
Scott McCarty, RHCA
Technical Product Marketing: Containers
Email: smccarty redhat com <mailto:smccarty redhat com>
Phone: 312-660-3535 <tel:312-660-3535>
Cell: 330-807-1043 <tel:330-807-1043>
Web: http://crunchtools.com
When should you split your application into multiple
containers? http://red.ht/22xKw9i
--
Scott McCarty, RHCA
Technical Product Marketing: Containers
Email: smccarty redhat com
Phone: 312-660-3535
Cell: 330-807-1043
Web: http://crunchtools.com
When should you split your application into multiple containers? http://red.ht/22xKw9i