Simon Geard wrote: > On Mon, 2012-11-12 at 11:56 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> cgroups? What advantages does that give to a single user workstation? >> A dedicated LAMP server? Factor those systems out and how many systems >> are left? > > It makes it possible to reliably track *all* processes started by a > particular service, no matter what convoluted techniques that service is > using to detach itself. Minor, I know, but useful... > > But conversely, what's the *disadvantage* to using cgroups? If you're > thinking of all the resource management stuff, you should know that > systemd doesn't use that unless someone has configured a particular > service to use it. All it does by default is stick an identifying label > on the processes started from it, something with no overhead to speak > of...
I believe that cgroups is primarily implemented in the kernel. My problem is that when is type 'mount' from the command line, I get many more cgroups than mounted file systems. That's an implementation detail that is an irritant and could probably be fixed in util-linux. On a single user or limited function server (e.g. lamp), there is little need to track the processes started by a service. If those systems are removed from the set of all Linux systems, how many are left? Being an advocate of LFS, I am not in favor of one-size-fits-all. Not related to systemd, I have the same problem with bash_completion. First, the files are in /etc/bash_completion.d when they should be in /lib/bash_completion.d. Second, they are stored in the environment. Running 'set' results in 10000 lines of output instead of the 80-100 lines or so expected. Fortunately it's easy to not source the bash_completion files. >> There is a balanced discussion at >> >> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/linux-general-1/what-are-the-advantages-disadvantages-of-using-systemd-versus-sysvinit-4175422544/ >> > > Somewhat balanced, perhaps. But I get a sense from there (and elsewhere) > that there are a lot of people take ideas like "do one thing well" and > "freedom of choice", and regard them as absolute holy law that must > never be questioned. And I tend to stop reading fairly quickly when I > see phrases like "people like him are poisonous" or other such abusive > ranting... I agree that ad hominem attacks are not called for. The problem is that changes are being forced on users that affect the way they work. The decision is being taken away from the user. The alternative, of course, is LFS or similar. My problem is that distros allow Gnome or KDE or Xfce or other window environments. Why can't they allow a choice in boot systems? -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
