On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote:> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote: >> What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? >> > Well (re)starting services in a reliable way? > Ensuring that services are up and running? > > About which sysinit are you talking btw? > The init process in RHEL 6 was upstart. > > systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it > _does_ provide much needed features. > > if you don't know them or if you ignore them > or if you think you don't need them: > fine > > but don't think others don't know or need > them. >That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and against systemd. (Mine, BTW is against, and I do not feel it fair to be discounted as a stupid minority as it is implied in your post). There is no point to repeat listing of ugly sides of systemd - which you said yourself are there. As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my life is more influenced by the servers I maintain. BTW, when "counting votes" keep in mind an existence of an army of refugees from Linux, they already have voted against ugliness here, there,... Just my $0.02 Valeri ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote:> That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and > against systemd.How could it sound like I collected "votes"? I don't care about votes when it comes to technical superiority.> As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to > sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts > 3 times fasterYou are making an excellent job at ignoring my argument. Again: how do you ensure that your system services are up and running with sysvinit? - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the> podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my > life is more influenced by the servers I maintain.Than how do you maintain servers with sysvinit? I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. kind regards Sven -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQGcBAEBAgAGBQJUsslAAAoJEAq0kGAWDrqluqoL/3BEc57e5w5y/S5f56dihIAv qTDlBJCNHeToknRvF/7q3J4LRL8PhHnN6Fs4tf9gJDIBMMTGGQbzT4JCkom310kV qSuUaohvxeO9zF8g9roqRA1T6hnfUfbraxIgbGU05yztGM5U6acRbf3WTBGMgem4 K+mg6z64WbVOXDSN1OnbFoELoSfoGO4Nn2Az/t6gYGC7343VT4s2ZAGC/DxzpUi5 JEDovBryBGsIy5cU+uMK153tKczmDOvn576Wcqr6dg1lcXKkmxc/iJHca7YADh5t /zaYnjimR/5HA/XUIIaUhmbw0dXk9wuMt10dKmR6+sNqU2SNNWJFptBUeN2qpgcm mYHzSFXi78Zse4GchP7GIlt4HocI2S/txeZLzq9P2WWwL3AKQev2b4FeYhzrc91K WRmn+DAu70DuOebEZeueXpLjUxlkFBnJ2BFQY8DeCQ0+A4D9pCpX+16/o1gzNaeR A29Gmy+9pg9x7+hZAyvJdZquE4h7ML5Nl2S28wMkSQ==0k8p -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 01/11/2015 01:04 PM, Sven Kieske wrote:> On 11.01.2015 19:05, Valeri Galtsev wrote: >> That sounds like you have collected and counted "votes" pro and >> against systemd. > How could it sound like I collected "votes"? I don't care about votes > when it comes to technical superiority. > >> As far as "advantages" are concerned: I didn't see any compared to >> sysvinit or upstart. I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts >> 3 times fasterIt is not just 3 times faster .. you can also list prereqs. So if something requires httpd to be started, you don't just mark one to start with a 10 and the other with a 15 .. then hold your breath and hope that it takes 2 seconds or less for the item marked with 10 to start before the item marked as 15 starts .. the daemon with a require does not attempt to start before the prereq as started and registered as started. You also act like starting servers faster is no big deal .. ask Amazon if it was a big deal that the hundreds of thousands of servers they need to restart for AWS xen update took 1/3 the time to restart. Ask them how much money it cost them for things to take way longer to restart. As any of the cloud providers how much time/money it can save if you can spin up things faster.> You are making an excellent job at ignoring my argument. > Again: how do you ensure that your system services are up and running > with sysvinit?You guys can't just ignore the advantages of systemd and even ignore the points like they don't exist. Here is a prime example. You would need to use another piece of software to do something systemd does that sysinit does not. You need something like monit (http://mmonit.com/monit/) to monitor daemons.> > - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the >> podium few seconds before giving your presentation. However, my >> life is more influenced by the servers I maintain. > Than how do you maintain servers with sysvinit? > > > I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the > design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems. >I agree with Sven .. this is a religious argument (like vi/emacs or kde/gnome or even gnome2/gnome3) and not a technical argument now. Stuff changes, get used it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20150111/e2ccec46/attachment-0001.sig>
On Sun, 2015-01-11 at 20:04 +0100, Sven Kieske wrote to Valeri Galtsev ....> I can't take this serious as it seems you didn't research any of the > design goals of systemd and any of the shortcomings of old init systems.Design goals ? Compatibility with and/or minimum disruption to existing systems ? It was arrogant change with absolutely no regard for the existing Centos/RHEL users. That *is* a strange "design goal" (or 'objective' in English). Some may consider that "goal" an inadvertent omission. Obviously designed by non-Centos/RHEL users for their personal amusement and pleasure and not as an acceptable enhancement that could be implemented, perhaps in phases, within minimum disruption to existing systems reliant on stable Centos/RHEL. Yes, I know it takes brains to properly consider all the implications of major changes. On this occasion it seems the 'brains' were holidaying away from the influence of due diligence and old fashioned commonsense. Why should the 'brains' care ? They don't run systems that require stability and reliability - that is why they lurk in Fedora where disruption is a scheduled "design goal". Remember that English phrase? Fools step-in where wise men fear to tread. Hopefully the next "improvement" will consider the adverse affect on the non-Fedora users and on their well-tuned systems. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote:> On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote: >> >> On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote: >>> What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? >>> >> systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it >> _does_ provide much needed features. > > I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 > times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the > podium few seconds before giving your presentation.What about all those poor enterprise people who have been arm-twisted into agreeing to SLAs? If you?ve agreed to provide five nines of availability, a single reboot in the old BIOS + hardware RAID + SysV init world could eat most of the ~5 minutes of downtime per year you?re allowed under that agreement. EFI + software-defined disk arrays + systemd might cut that to a minute, allowing several reboots per year. Until we start to see hot-upgradable Linux kernels in mainstream distributions, I?d say that does amount to an ?enterprise? feature. You can extend this argument to four-nines, where you only get 4 minutes of downtime per month. Looking through the centos-announce list archive, there seems to be roughly one kernel-* RPM change per month. Do you really want to burn your entire downtime allowance on that?
On Mon, January 12, 2015 11:00 am, Warren Young wrote:> On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:05 AM, Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> > wrote: > >> On Sun, January 11, 2015 11:22 am, Sven Kieske wrote: >>> >>> On 11.01.2015 03:42, James B. Byrne wrote: >>>> What does systemd buy the enterprise that sysinit did not provide? >>>> >>> systemd has it's ugly downsides, but it >>> _does_ provide much needed features. >> >> I don't care that _laptop_ with systemd starts 3 >> times faster - it's brilliant when you have to start it right on the >> podium few seconds before giving your presentation. > > What about all those poor enterprise people who have been arm-twisted into > agreeing to SLAs? > > If you?ve agreed to provide five nines of availability, a single reboot in > the old BIOS + hardware RAID + SysV init world could eat most of the ~5 > minutes of downtime per year you?re allowed under that agreement. EFI + > software-defined disk arrays + systemd might cut that to a minute, > allowing several reboots per year.Oh, boy, I like this! Do we finally converge on not rebooting machines often?! Valeri> > Until we start to see hot-upgradable Linux kernels in mainstream > distributions, I?d say that does amount to an ?enterprise? feature. > > You can extend this argument to four-nines, where you only get 4 minutes > of downtime per month. Looking through the centos-announce list archive, > there seems to be roughly one kernel-* RPM change per month. Do you > really want to burn your entire downtime allowance on that? > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++