On Tue, 23.08.11 13:54, Stephen John Smoogen (smooge(a)gmail.com) wrote:
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 13:37, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Tom Callaway (tcallawa(a)redhat.com) said:
>> On 08/22/2011 01:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > I'm pretty sure that we kicked this up to FESCo and they decided to
treat
>> > them the same (although the latter may not have come to a formal vote and
>> > only been discussed during their IRC meetings on the overall subject.)
Going
>> > back to the quote in this message, though, that was a result of
discussions
>> > with Lennart rather than FESCo.
>>
>> Sure. I just want FESCo to either decide that socket-activated services
>> == the same as default enabled services, or that there is some sort of
>> separate whitelisting for socket-activated services.
>
> Thinking about this some more, I don't see why there should be a huge
> distinction here.
>
> A socket-activated service is much the same as a non-socket-activated
> service, in that installing the unit won't activate the service unless
> something calls for it, or the admin/rpm scripts run 'systemctl enable'. So
A couple of questions:
1) Does the above mean that every netscan will start up various
services on systems?
The focus of systemd's socket activation is primarily AF_UNIX, not so
much AF_INET. And besides CUPS and sshd there are probably not too many
services where lazy-loading services really makes sense. You want to
lazy-load only those service which are really seldom used (i.e. 1/h or
less or so). Also note that CUPS does not listen on AF_INET by default,
only AF_UNIX.
Also, cups is using Accept=no which means it would be started exactly
once and then stay around.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.