>I just miss the elegance of the solution: I personally want to model
>one service with one s6 service. For me it would mean thinking about a
>wrapper around s6 to get that. Maybe I get now the slew thing.
The thing is, s6 is a *process supervision* suite, so one s6 "service"
is really one long-running process. When you want health checks, you
have two long-running processes: your daemon, and your health checker.
So two s6 "services" is really the most elegant, most idiomatic and
most natural solution.
What you could have, on the other hand, is a s6-rc bundle, that
contains
both your daemon and your health checker: so you would be able to
handle both the daemon and the health checker (2 longruns) with a
single s6-rc/svctl command, using the name of the bundle.
It's probably something that I can add to the next version of s6-rc:
a command or an option to automatically add a health checker service to
a longrun that is declared in the database, so you wouldn't have to
write the health checker longrun manually. How does that sound?
>And it's ok to need a wrapper to get useability, but the
>advertisement of that should be better on the website that you SHOULD
>use that wrapper (and for me this wrapper should be part of the s6
>project).
This is indeed a UI problem and I'm still working on it. ;)
--
Laurent
Received on Fri Oct 23 2020 - 13:44:55 UTC