| 1 |
On 03/28/2013 03:51 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, March 28, 2013 07:59, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 28/03/2013 04:56, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On 03/27/2013 05:51 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On 27/03/2013 22:41, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> The case for systemd is twofold: |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> ... |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> 2) Reduce the amount of CPU and RAM consumed when you're talking about |
| 11 |
>>>>> booting tens of thousands of instances simultaneously across your |
| 12 |
>>>>> entire |
| 13 |
>>>>> infrastructure, or when your server instance might be spun up and down |
| 14 |
>>>>> six times over the course of a single day. |
| 15 |
>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>> I seems to me that this is rather a niche quite-specialized case |
| 17 |
>>>> (albeit |
| 18 |
>>>> a rather large instance of a niche case). In which case it would be |
| 19 |
>>>> better implemented as Redhat MagicSauce for their cloud environment |
| 20 |
>>>> where it would be exactly tuned to that case's need. |
| 21 |
>>> |
| 22 |
>>> But it's a great deal cheaper to convince volunteers and package |
| 23 |
>>> maintainers to put in the time to build the necessary service files of |
| 24 |
>>> their own accord. Add in the complexity of parallel boot, and you can |
| 25 |
>>> induce upstream to fix their own race-driven bugs rather than have to |
| 26 |
>>> pay for that development directly. |
| 27 |
>>> |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> I don't follow the thought stream here Michael. |
| 30 |
>> It feels like there's a word or a sentence missing (it's just not |
| 31 |
>> hanging together) |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Alan, I think what Michael is trying to say is that by getting other |
| 34 |
> distros to package systemd, other distros will help RedHat to find and fix |
| 35 |
> the problems systemd is causing. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Exactly this. |
Archives