| 1 |
On 2013-03-27 4:41 PM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/27/2013 04:00 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 2013-03-27, Kevin Chadwick<ma1l1ists@××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> The real drive behind systemd is enterprise cloud type computing for |
| 5 |
>>> Red Hat. The rest is snake oil and much of the features already exist |
| 6 |
>>> without systemd. With more snake oil of promises of faster boot up on a |
| 7 |
>>> portion of the code which is already fast and gains you maybe two |
| 8 |
>>> seconds. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
>> I'm not trying to fan the flames: I'm genuinely confused... |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> I just don't get the whole "parallel startup for faster boot thing". |
| 13 |
>> Most of my machines just don't boot up often enough for a few seconds |
| 14 |
>> or even tens of seconds to matter at all. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> With cloud-based computing, you don't have a bunch of servers running, |
| 17 |
> waiting to received requests. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Instead, you have is a bunch of idle hardware, waiting to have pre-built |
| 20 |
> system images spun up on them on-demand. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The faster those pre-built images can spin up, the faster they can serve |
| 23 |
> requests. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Ok, well, that actually makes perfect sense (and answers my question |
| 26 |
about why Redhat is interested in and pushing it). |
Archives