| 1 |
On 03/28/2013 10:35 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 28/03/2013 15:16, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 03/28/2013 03:51 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Thu, March 28, 2013 07:59, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 28/03/2013 04:56, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On 03/27/2013 05:51 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> On 27/03/2013 22:41, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>>>>> The case for systemd is twofold: |
| 9 |
>>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>>> ... |
| 11 |
>>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>>>> 2) Reduce the amount of CPU and RAM consumed when you're talking about |
| 13 |
>>>>>>> booting tens of thousands of instances simultaneously across your |
| 14 |
>>>>>>> entire |
| 15 |
>>>>>>> infrastructure, or when your server instance might be spun up and down |
| 16 |
>>>>>>> six times over the course of a single day. |
| 17 |
>>>>>> |
| 18 |
>>>>>> I seems to me that this is rather a niche quite-specialized case |
| 19 |
>>>>>> (albeit |
| 20 |
>>>>>> a rather large instance of a niche case). In which case it would be |
| 21 |
>>>>>> better implemented as Redhat MagicSauce for their cloud environment |
| 22 |
>>>>>> where it would be exactly tuned to that case's need. |
| 23 |
>>>>> |
| 24 |
>>>>> But it's a great deal cheaper to convince volunteers and package |
| 25 |
>>>>> maintainers to put in the time to build the necessary service files of |
| 26 |
>>>>> their own accord. Add in the complexity of parallel boot, and you can |
| 27 |
>>>>> induce upstream to fix their own race-driven bugs rather than have to |
| 28 |
>>>>> pay for that development directly. |
| 29 |
>>>>> |
| 30 |
>>>> |
| 31 |
>>>> I don't follow the thought stream here Michael. |
| 32 |
>>>> It feels like there's a word or a sentence missing (it's just not |
| 33 |
>>>> hanging together) |
| 34 |
>>> |
| 35 |
>>> Alan, I think what Michael is trying to say is that by getting other |
| 36 |
>>> distros to package systemd, other distros will help RedHat to find and fix |
| 37 |
>>> the problems systemd is causing. |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> Exactly this. |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> Ah, a definition of "getting" that I was heretofore unfamiliar with. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Obviously "getting" doesn't mean what I think it means, it means |
| 46 |
> "forcing without giving the other party much of a choice in the matter |
| 47 |
> by ripping out essential infrastructure and replacing it with something |
| 48 |
> tuned to RedHat, and only RedHat's, needs." |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> Ok, I got it now. Thanks for clearing that up. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
In theory, it's supposed to be an additional option when choosing an |
| 53 |
init system, rather than forcing a wholesale switchover across the Linux |
| 54 |
infrastructure. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
If it weren't for the upstream udev behavior, that's probably what it |
| 57 |
would still be. (Perhaps eudev will be a resolution to this, perhaps |
| 58 |
not. Only time will tell.) |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Apart from the issues around udev, I don't expect this to get in the way |
| 61 |
a whole lot. Converting systemd unit files to classic init scripts |
| 62 |
shouldn't prove to be difficult to largely automate. |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Getting systemic race issues fixed is probably going to be a good thing. |
| 65 |
Getting daemon writers to architect their software in ways that survive |
| 66 |
parallel booting will probably be a good thing. Code quality outside of |
| 67 |
systemd *should* ultimately improve as a result of all this...but it's a |
| 68 |
valid question whether or not the things being fixed would be worth the |
| 69 |
effort if the new parallel boot agents hadn't begun taking hold. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
On the other hand, it's equally valid to note that, with SMP |
| 72 |
architectures becoming pervasive, it was only a matter of time before |
| 73 |
traditionally-serial systems would be pressured into taking advantage of |
| 74 |
them. |
| 75 |
|
| 76 |
This too, shall pass. |
Archives