Has anyone ever seen this?

Kevin Darcy kcd at daimlerchrysler.com
Mon Nov 13 23:42:38 UTC 2000


Igmar Palsenberg wrote:

> On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Mathias K=F6rber wrote:
>
> > > The only thing that belongs in inittab is a list of (min)getty's for th=
> e
> > > terminal, and things like getty's for modems etc.
> >=20
> > That is a rather restrictive view.
> > I'm still looking for a detailed justification for it.
>
> I'm not talking about stuff in /etc/rc.d/ here, just the processes that
> get started and kept alive by init(8).
>
> You can easely control things in runlevels, stuff that is kept alive by
> init itself is a lot harder to maintain.
> I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it's bad practice.

> > > The rest should go in runlevels. I've seen strange things happen with
> > > weard things in /etc/inittab
> >=20
> > Like what? I have been using SysV-like init for years to
> > start some daemons, w/o ill-effects.
>
> A machine that went totally dead because init wanted to respawn something
> that wanted to die.

Modern init's will stop hammering on a respawn entry if it dies too often.
Haven't you ever seen the infamous "command is respawning too rapidly"?


- Kevin




More information about the bind-users mailing list