Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

I've done a fair amount of hand-to-hand combat with systemd. When it's good it's good, tho not always apparent why it's good. But for example some of my servers boot in seconds. When it's bad it can be painful and incredibly opaque and a huge time sink. Googling for suggestions I've found sever

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:11:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > But > for example some of my servers boot in seconds. One is reminded of a mail, included in the Preface to _The UNIX-HATERS Handbook_, available at http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/preface.html. Apparently, things really a

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:11:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: >> But >> for example some of my servers boot in seconds. > > One is reminded of a mail, included in the Preface to _The UNIX-HATERS > Handbook_, available at it's really not cle

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Christopher Morrow wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:11:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: But for example some of my servers boot in seconds. One is reminded of a mail, included in the Preface to _The UNIX-HATERS Handbook_, available at it

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

rry Shein" > To: "Israel G. Lugo" > Cc: nanog@nanog.org > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 3:11:55 PM > Subject: Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] > I've done a fair amount of hand-to-hand combat with systemd. > > When it's good it's good, tho not

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

- Original Message - > From: "Capi" > On 10/21/2014 11:29 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > The thing that I don't understand about systemd is how it managed to > > get > > *EVERY SINGLE DISTRIBUTION'S RELEASE MANAGER* on board in less than > > a year, > > given how thoroughly it violates the U

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 21/10/14 23:55, Jay Ashworth wrote: > Ok, but how does it handle providing initscripts? I gather any upstreams > which used to provide them aren't anymore... It's Gentoo: "You should write your own" is the most likely answer. -- Tom

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

, since packages don't even include them anymore. Does Poettering have compromising photographs of all these guys in a puppy pile at a Linuxcon somewhere? Cheers, -- jra - Original Message - From: "Barry Shein" To: "Israel G. Lugo" Cc: nanog@nanog.org Sent: Tuesday, Octo

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 10/21/2014 11:55 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > - Original Message - >> From: "Capi" Whoops, used the wrong alias to reply. >> Not *every single* distribution... > I had meant to put an asterisk on that. My remark was meant to be tongue-in-cheek :) > Ok, but how does it handle providi

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:29:44 -0400, Jay Ashworth wrote: The thing that I don't understand about systemd is how it managed to get *EVERY SINGLE DISTRIBUTION'S RELEASE MANAGER* on board... It's spelled "Red Hat". Add in GNOME and debian (et. al.) is backed into a corner. Red Hat is soo f'ing

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 10/21/2014 11:59 PM, Tom Hill wrote: > On 21/10/14 23:55, Jay Ashworth wrote: >> Ok, but how does it handle providing initscripts? I gather any upstreams >> which used to provide them aren't anymore... > It's Gentoo: "You should write your own" is the most likely answer. Actually, not at all;

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Israel G. Lugo wrote: On 10/21/2014 11:59 PM, Tom Hill wrote: On 21/10/14 23:55, Jay Ashworth wrote: Ok, but how does it handle providing initscripts? I gather any upstreams which used to provide them aren't anymore... It's Gentoo: "You should write your own" is the most likely answer. Actua

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 22/10/14 00:57, Israel G. Lugo wrote: > Gentoo is about flexibility and choice. It's got a steepish learning > curve, yes, but the documentation is very good; sadly, much of it was > lost a few years ago, due to a bad mishap on the community Gentoo Wiki > server, apparently without any backups.

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

- Original Message - > From: "Ricky Beam" > On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 18:29:44 -0400, Jay Ashworth > wrote: > > The thing that I don't understand about systemd is how it managed to > > get *EVERY SINGLE DISTRIBUTION'S RELEASE MANAGER* on board... > > It's spelled "Red Hat". Add in GNOME and d

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

> On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > GNOME is probably the linchpin. > > But it's not just RH. It's Debian, and by extension *buntu, and SuSE, and > at least one other major independent parent distro that I can't think of > just now... > > And as far as I know, it's done

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

George Herbert wrote: On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:03 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: GNOME is probably the linchpin. But it's not just RH. It's Debian, and by extension *buntu, and SuSE, and at least one other major independent parent distro that I can't think of just now... And as far as I know, it's

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 22/10/14 10:41, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what distros > are popular these days, for server-side operations? We've been running > Debian like forever (by way of Solaris and redhat) - but this systemd > thing is making me rethink things.

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Before leaving Debian, things to think: - will systemd be officialy the only system available ? - if so, won't we get a way to bypass that ? I'm not gonna throw Debian away due to such a mess, without fighting hard, and I think you should do the same: talk, patch if needed, show you're here If al

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

na...@jack.fr.eu.org (na...@jack.fr.eu.org) wrote: > I'm not gonna throw Debian away due to such a mess, without fighting > hard, and I think you should do the same: talk, patch if needed, show > you're here ...and sit it out with wheezy-LTS... Elmar.

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

> Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what > distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? been running bsd forever. but moving to debian and ganeti, as bsd does not host virtualization. would love it if debian ditched this systemd monstrosity and provided s

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

> > Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what > > distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? > > been running bsd forever. but moving to debian and ganeti, as bsd does > not host virtualization. Simply not true; http://bhyve.org/ It is a bit immature co

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 22 October 2014 11:34, wrote: > Before leaving Debian, things to think: > - will systemd be officialy the only system available ? > - if so, won't we get a way to bypass that ? > And one other thought... is it really that bad? Personally I like it a lot better than sysV plus inittab plus dae

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

>>> Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what >>> distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? >> been running bsd forever. but moving to debian and ganeti, as bsd >> does not host virtualization. > Simply not true; http://bhyve.org/ > It is a bit immature com

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

> >>> Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what > >>> distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? > >> been running bsd forever. but moving to debian and ganeti, as bsd > >> does not host virtualization. > > Simply not true; http://bhyve.org/ > > It is a bit

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:00:52PM +0100, Daniel Ankers wrote: > On 22 October 2014 11:34, wrote: > > Before leaving Debian, things to think: > > - will systemd be officialy the only system available ? > > - if so, won't we get a way to bypass that ? > > And one other thought... is it really that

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

When it's working, no doupt, I'll be fine I don't care (or just a few) about when it's working. The point is: what about it's failure ? On the ethical point of view, systemd is killed anyway On 22/10/2014 13:00, Daniel Ankers wrote: > On 22 October 2014 11:34, > wrot

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 6:12 AM, Joe Greco wrote: > when so much effort has been put into that very issue, specifically so > that we could gain the advantages of a BSD hypervisor that supported > ZFS natively... [snip] If you want native ZFS support, then Solaris x86-64+Zones+KVM or SmartOS.

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 12:34:17 +0200, na...@jack.fr.eu.org said: > Before leaving Debian, things to think: > - will systemd be officialy the only system available ? > - if so, won't we get a way to bypass that ? Somebody already forked systemd at a point before it completely lost the plot. http://u

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

na...@jack.fr.eu.org wrote: Before leaving Debian, things to think: - will systemd be officialy the only system available ? - if so, won't we get a way to bypass that ? officially, there will be support for multiple init systems; in practice, the installer doesn't provide an option, and trying

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

I'm reminded of the remark often attributed to DEC CEO Ken Olson, roughly: With VMS (their big complex OS) it might take hours searching through manuals to find a feature you need while with Unix you can determine in seconds that it is not available. On October 21, 2014 at 16:10 asulli...

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On October 21, 2014 at 16:43 morrowc.li...@gmail.com (Christopher Morrow) wrote: > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:11:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > >> But > >> for example some of my servers boot in seconds. > > > > One is reminded o

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:31:02 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: Perhaps you don't remember the days when an fsck was basically mandatory and could take 15-20 minutes on a large disk. Journaling has all but done away with fsck. You'd have to go *way* back to have systems that ran a full fsck on every

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

> Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what > distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? We've > been running Debian like forever (by way of Solaris and redhat) - but > this systemd thing is making me rethink things. Seems like an awful > lot of folks are n

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On October 22, 2014 at 12:00 md1...@md1clv.com (Daniel Ankers) wrote: > On 22 October 2014 11:34, wrote: > > > Before leaving Debian, things to think: > > - will systemd be officialy the only system available ? > > - if so, won't we get a way to bypass that ? > > > > And one other thoug

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Barry Schein: > I'm reminded of the remark often attributed to DEC CEO Ken Olson, > roughly: > > With VMS (their big complex OS) it might take hours searching > through manuals to find a feature you need while with Unix you can > determine in seconds that it is not available. and how did th

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

David Ford wrote: Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? We've been running Debian like forever (by way of Solaris and redhat) - but this systemd thing is making me rethink things. Seems like an awful lot of f

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? We've been running Debian like forever (by way of Solaris and redhat) - but this systemd thing is making me rethink things. Seems like an awful lot of folks are now desi

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

> the vast majority of negative tongue wagging regarding systemd is ill > informed. can we skip the ad homina and leave that for the systemd dev fora? > does systemd have growing pains? definitely. are some egos involved? > sure. can systemd be far reaching? yes, is such reach mandated? > no. us

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Randy Bush wrote: the vast majority of negative tongue wagging regarding systemd is ill informed. can we skip the ad homina and leave that for the systemd dev fora? does systemd have growing pains? definitely. are some egos involved? sure. can systemd be far reaching? yes, is such reach mandat

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:35:51 -, David Ford said: > into a common bus. not everything in systemd is a requirement to run it. > just because a unit is offered for dhcp or ntp, doesn't mean you are > required to use it. Actually, systemd 216 will cram systemd-timesyncd down your throat even if y

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Once upon a time, valdis.kletni...@vt.edu said: > Actually, systemd 216 will cram systemd-timesyncd down your throat even > if you had ntpd installed. Yeah, I think a lot of the upset with systemd is not so much with the core daemon that runs as PID 1, but with the massive scope creep that the sy

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:34 PM, Randy Bush wrote: >> the vast majority of negative tongue wagging regarding systemd is ill >> informed. > > can we skip the ad homina and leave that for the systemd dev fora? I don't think that it's an ad homina attack, as it's pretty clear that many of the people

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:48 PM, wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:35:51 -, David Ford said: > >> into a common bus. not everything in systemd is a requirement to run it. >> just because a unit is offered for dhcp or ntp, doesn't mean you are >> required to use it. > > Actually, systemd 216 wil

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > I think that Debian's plan to allow multiple init systems > (irregardless of which one is default) is a bad plan. The non-default > ones won't get any love - at some point they'll just stop working (or > indeed, work at all). Indeed.

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Bah, boot speed; On my server, boot is slow down by hardware initialization. The soft side is quite low. But the point is not "makes things faster from 15 to 14 sec is useless". The point is : it's good, but at what price ? As you said, there were many improvements over the past. What was the "c

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:48 PM, wrote: > Bah, boot speed; > > On my server, boot is slow down by hardware initialization. > The soft side is quite low. > > But the point is not "makes things faster from 15 to 14 sec is useless". > The point is : it's good, but at what price ? I agree that "boot

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein wrote: [snip] > The unix community has exerted great amounts of effort over the > decades to speed up reboot, particularly after crashes but also > planned. Perhaps you don't remember the days when an fsck was > basically mandatory and could take 15-20

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein wrote: >> And you whisk all that away with "it's not really clear to me that >> 'reboots in seconds' is a think to be optimized" > > False dilemma. > [ snip ] > 10 seconds from power on to user i

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 09:48:51PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote: > Optimizing reboot time down from 20 minutes to 1 minute is a > significantly meaningful improvement; it's literally a 85% reduction > in time spent during each boot process from the original time. if reducing boot time from 20 minu

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 10/22/2014 23:02, Jim Mercer wrote: if reducing boot time from 20 minutes down to 1 minute, in a server environment, is a serious issue for you, maybe you should be looking at why you need to reboot so often? That is the question I have been asking myself. Back in the day we took it a a f

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, 22 Oct 2014, Larry Sheldon wrote: That is the question I have been asking myself. Back in the day we took it a a failure if a reboot happened. (I remember discussions about needing to reboot to keep counters from overflowing. I thought programming for counter wrap was a better idea.)

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Ok. As a highly on- list-topic example of why distrust is called for... Without referring to the systemd source code*, does anyone know what systemd uses to select between networking subsystems (i.e. NetworkManager, the new standard as of RHEL 7, vs /etc/ sysconfig/network-scripts/, etc.).

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 10/22/14 9:29 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > On 10/22/2014 23:02, Jim Mercer wrote: > >> if reducing boot time from 20 minutes down to 1 minute, in a server >> environment, >> is a serious issue for you, maybe you should be looking at why you >> need to >> reboot so often? > > > That is the quest

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:28 AM, George Herbert wrote: > > Ok. As a highly on- list-topic example of why distrust is called for... > > Without referring to the systemd source code*, does anyone know what systemd > uses to select between networking subsystems (i.e. NetworkManager, the new > sta

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

When I'm talking about "hardware initialization", I'm talking about the huge part that appends *before* the kernel boots. For example, hard-based RAID. On my server, when I push the start button, bios start-up, do a lot of awesome things (irony), start the raid (sloowly), and then, after 5min, pop

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 11:59:44PM +0100, Tom Hill wrote: > It's Gentoo: "You should write your own" is the most likely answer. Not if you ask nicely :) -- Eray Aslan

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Gregory Boyce wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: >> I think that Debian's plan to allow multiple init systems >> (irregardless of which one is default) is a bad plan. The non-default >> ones won't get any love - at some point they'll j

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On October 22, 2014 at 15:31 jfb...@gmail.com (Ricky Beam) wrote: > On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:31:02 -0400, Barry Shein wrote: > > Perhaps you don't remember the days when an fsck was > > basically mandatory and could take 15-20 minutes on a large disk. > > Journaling has all but done away with

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On October 23, 2014 at 04:42 ra...@psg.com (Randy Bush) wrote: > Barry Schein: Interesting you went to the trouble to add a 'c' to my name! You need better quoting tools. > > I'm reminded of the remark often attributed to DEC CEO Ken Olson, > > roughly: > > > > With VMS (their big comple

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Going way off topic but what's still a disaster in log files is the lack of standardization of output. As another extreme OS/370 catalogued virtually (hah) every error msg, if you thought you had a new one you added it to the catalogue as you added it to an error msg in your program and it was li

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

- Original Message - > From: "Gregory Boyce" > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Jeffrey Ollie > > wrote: > >> I think that Debian's plan to allow multiple init systems > >> (irregardless of which one is default) is a bad plan. The > >> non-default > >> ones won't get any love - at some

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Original Message - > From: "Jeffrey Ollie" > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 9:48 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein > > wrote: > >> And you whisk all that away with "it's not really clear to me that > >> 'reboots in seconds' is a think to be optimized"

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

after watching this discussion for a while, i have decided that i am in favour of systemd. i encourage its development, and widespread adoption. it will hasten the demise of linux in the server enviroment, which can only be a good thing. if people really want to run their servers on the *nix eq

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > > I will stipulate this use case. > > I will counter with "you wouldn't be running a "real" distro in that > case anyway; you'd be running something super trimmed down, and possibly > custom built, or based on something like CoreOS, that only

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

- Original Message - > From: "Jeffrey Ollie" > On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Jay Ashworth > wrote: > > > > I will stipulate this use case. > > > > I will counter with "you wouldn't be running a "real" distro in that > > case anyway; you'd be running something super trimmed down, and

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

On 10/27/2014 11:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: I will counter with "you wouldn't be running a "real" distro in that case anyway; you'd be running something super trimmed down, and possibly custom built, or based on something like CoreOS, that only does one job. Well. Hmm, now this one I wasn't

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Lamar Owen wrote: On 10/27/2014 11:35 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote: I will counter with "you wouldn't be running a "real" distro in that case anyway; you'd be running something super trimmed down, and possibly custom built, or based on something like CoreOS, that only does one job. Well. Hmm, now

Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

- Original Message - > From: "Miles Fidelman" > > Hmm, now this one I wasn't aware of this tidbit here has made this > > thread worthwhile to me, as we work on developing some clustered > > 'things' for use here. CoreOS wasn't even on the 'look at this at > > some point in time' l

Self destruction in open source systems (was Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT])

On 10/22/2014 06:01, Randy Bush wrote: Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? been running bsd forever. but moving to debian and ganeti, as bsd does not host virtualization. Simply not true; http://bhyve.org/

Re: Self destruction in open source systems (was Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT])

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: > > Now I have Thunderbird and Firefox--from people who are committed to the > notion that if it works, it must be replaced. If people like it, it must > be redesigned. If it is stable, it must be updated. If there is a > useless, senseless

Re: Self destruction in open source systems (was Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT])

Joe Hamelin wrote: On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote: Now I have Thunderbird and Firefox--from people who are committed to the notion that if it works, it must be replaced. If people like it, it must be redesigned. If it is stable, it must be updated. If there is a useles