[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-user
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-user] Re: udev blocks systemd etc
From:       Michael Mol <mikemol () gmail ! com>
Date:       2013-03-28 15:32:35
Message-ID: 51546293.2080307 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


On 03/28/2013 10:35 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 28/03/2013 15:16, Michael Mol wrote:
>> On 03/28/2013 03:51 AM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>> On Thu, March 28, 2013 07:59, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/2013 04:56, Michael Mol wrote:
>>>>> On 03/27/2013 05:51 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/03/2013 22:41, Michael Mol wrote:
>>>>>>> The case for systemd is twofold:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2) Reduce the amount of CPU and RAM consumed when you're talking about
>>>>>>> booting tens of thousands of instances simultaneously across your
>>>>>>> entire
>>>>>>> infrastructure, or when your server instance might be spun up and down
>>>>>>> six times over the course of a single day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I seems to me that this is rather a niche quite-specialized case
>>>>>> (albeit
>>>>>> a rather large instance of a niche case). In which case it would be
>>>>>> better implemented as Redhat MagicSauce for their cloud environment
>>>>>> where it would be exactly tuned to that case's need.
>>>>>
>>>>> But it's a great deal cheaper to convince volunteers and package
>>>>> maintainers to put in the time to build the necessary service files of
>>>>> their own accord. Add in the complexity of parallel boot, and you can
>>>>> induce upstream to fix their own race-driven bugs rather than have to
>>>>> pay for that development directly.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't follow the thought stream here Michael.
>>>> It feels like there's a word or a sentence missing (it's just not
>>>> hanging together)
>>>
>>> Alan, I think what Michael is trying to say is that by getting other
>>> distros to package systemd, other distros will help RedHat to find and fix
>>> the problems systemd is causing.
>>
>> Exactly this.
>>
>>
> 
> Ah, a definition of "getting" that I was heretofore unfamiliar with.
> 
> Obviously "getting" doesn't mean what I think it means, it means
> "forcing without giving the other party much of a choice in the matter
> by ripping out essential infrastructure and replacing it with something
> tuned to RedHat, and only RedHat's, needs."
> 
> Ok, I got it now. Thanks for clearing that up.

In theory, it's supposed to be an additional option when choosing an
init system, rather than forcing a wholesale switchover across the Linux
infrastructure.

If it weren't for the upstream udev behavior, that's probably what it
would still be. (Perhaps eudev will be a resolution to this, perhaps
not. Only time will tell.)

Apart from the issues around udev, I don't expect this to get in the way
a whole lot. Converting systemd unit files to classic init scripts
shouldn't prove to be difficult to largely automate.

Getting systemic race issues fixed is probably going to be a good thing.
Getting daemon writers to architect their software in ways that survive
parallel booting will probably be a good thing. Code quality outside of
systemd *should* ultimately improve as a result of all this...but it's a
valid question whether or not the things being fixed would be worth the
effort if the new parallel boot agents hadn't begun taking hold.

On the other hand, it's equally valid to note that, with SMP
architectures becoming pervasive, it was only a matter of time before
traditionally-serial systems would be pressured into taking advantage of
them.

This too, shall pass.




["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]