It would make monitory not required. I have never been on a system where inetd failed ... so why monitor? E
VICS, LLC Eric S Eberhard 2933 W Middle Verde Rd Camp Verde, AZ 86322
928-567-3727 (land line) 928-301-7537 (cell phone)
http://www.vicsmba.com https://www.facebook.com/groups/286143052248115
-----Original Message----- From: Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 1:06 PM To: Eberhard flash@vicsmba.com Cc: 'Jorge Redondo Flames' jorge.redondo@gmail.com; stunnel-users@stunnel.org Subject: Re: [stunnel-users] Re: Fwd: Re: Local socket keeps listening
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 09:42:41AM -0700, Eberhard wrote:
I’ll toss in an unpopular opinion here. I have used stunnel since day one. I had over the years problems with it not answering or the parent process dying altogether and other issues. I finally decided to run it from inetd rather than as a service. It is logical that this is a little slower but with modern machines I don’t notice it. inetd always is running. Always. If it is not you pretty much cannot use the machine. It has been a service program forever and is dead reliable. What you get is total reliability for an unnoticeable loss of speed. I suppose a heavily loaded machine running at capacity might not like this – my answer is throw hardware at it. I need reliable more than anything else. I’d at least try it!
Um. Did you read the original message in this thread? How exactly could inetd possibly help with the monitoring problem?
G'luck, Peter
-- Peter Pentchev roam@ringlet.net roam@debian.org pp@storpool.com PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13