| 1 |
Am 20.09.2014 um 16:08 schrieb Mark David Dumlao: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Alec Ten Harmsel |
| 3 |
> <alec@××××××××××××××.com <mailto:alec@××××××××××××××.com>> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> On 09/17/2014 10:40 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> > Fact is if it's _you_ that seems to give a tweet about systemd |
| 9 |
> speed, |
| 10 |
> > so it's on _you_ to measure it, I don't really care what you |
| 11 |
> think. The |
| 12 |
> > fact that you think pid1's speed or resource usage might be a |
| 13 |
> big deal |
| 14 |
> > is very indicative on how badly informed you are in the first place. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> I don't care about systemd speed. I really am completely ambivalent |
| 17 |
> about PID1; I've run Upstart, I've run systemd, I've run OpenRC, and |
| 18 |
> they all work fine. All I'm saying is that a common point in the |
| 19 |
> systemd |
| 20 |
> community seems to be its awesome performance (unless I'm reading the |
| 21 |
> wrong documentation and conversations), and burden of proof is on the |
| 22 |
> party making the claim. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> The thing is, that's a strawman. Volker is outright delusional about |
| 26 |
> systemd people breaking into his threads and forcefeeding him Lennart |
| 27 |
> facts like "systemd is faster". It's the exact opposite. Every time a |
| 28 |
> systemd thread comes up, here come the anti-fanboys whining about |
| 29 |
> "well why should _i_ use it? because it's _faster_?" as if we gave a |
| 30 |
> crap that he did. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I am deluded? Who again posted systemd propaganda again? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> The burden of proof is on the party making the claim, but almost |
| 35 |
> nobody is making the claim -to him-. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
No, just on public mailing lists and fora. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
True, speed is not a factor. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Except if you claim it is. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
> The fact that he thinks systemd's speed is important already betrays |
| 44 |
> how biased and narrow his thinking is on the topic. Most people don't |
| 45 |
> even bother with bootup speeds that cut a few seconds off. Heck I |
| 46 |
> tried to tweak my boot process with systemd and I had a hard time |
| 47 |
> getting _even_ with Ubuntu. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
so the systemd-fanbois that always masturbate about how systemd is so |
| 50 |
much faster than anything else are actually lying? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Interesting. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
If those systemd-fanbois wouldn't talk about how-fast-their-toy-is, I |
| 55 |
wouldn't care about it. I only boot to replace kernels. I don't care |
| 56 |
about boot time, as long as it stays under 5 minutes. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> Generally we care more about the fact that services have actual |
| 59 |
> dependencies, are written declaratively, can be executed exactly as |
| 60 |
> upstream recommends, don't have magic code hacks, are automatically |
| 61 |
> cgrouped and thus have all child processes guaranteed killed on |
| 62 |
> service down, that logs and STDOUT are tracked and searchable in the |
| 63 |
> journal, etc etc etc. Every single one of those matters more than |
| 64 |
> bootup speed, but yeah, we heard somewhere that you can tweak parallel |
| 65 |
> boots to be faster or something. |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
and if your system breaks and systemd stops working - how do you easily |
| 68 |
access those logs? Just a question. With other logging solutions it is |
| 69 |
easy: cat, less tail... etc. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> Point is he's trying to paint the picture that systemd folks rattle on |
| 73 |
> and on about its speed, but they don't. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
except when they do. |
Archives