Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
Edward Bartolo wrote: > Considering the fact that many Linux users moan about not being able > to run the latest "shiny" software, and sometimes even complain and > insist they want their MS Windows applications on their Linux > machines, I have to concede them, that this time systemd scored an > extra brownie point in their favour. This alone will be an extra > reason for any of them to choose systemd. +1 > I am saying this because Linux users are very diverse, with > experienced and knowledgeable system administrators being a small > minority. In my opinion, if Devuan want to be a competitor/alternative > it must provide the same functionality with reasonably the same effort > and efficiency. +1 > It is useless to tell the younger generations they > should lock themselves somewhere to research and study if they can > effectively do the same task with little to no effort. And this, in shovelfuls. I was introduced to computers in the days when (for a desktop) you switched it on, and typically ended up at an input prompt for a basic interpreter. You could then type in your program to do something - whether that be something you wrote yourself, or something printed in a magazine (I bet a few here can remeber magazines with pages of listings !) Or you could try your luck and see if what you wrote out to a cassette tape yesterday will load today, armed with your little screwdriver for twiddling the azimuth adjustment. If really posh, you'd have a disk drive - my second computer was an ITT2020 (Apple II clone) and did have a disk drive - storing what seemed like a massive 143k per disk (less overheads). These days, the vast majority want their shiny tablet/phone, press the button and instant gratification, and even IT people I've discussed things with really don't give a s**t about "open". Some are even hostile to the whole idea that anyone should be able to "fiddle with the insides". ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
I apologize for top-posting, but I have no idea what you are talking about. For the record, I am not fond of GRUB2 either. Peter Olson > On August 9, 2016 at 1:52 AM Edward Bartolo wrote: > > Considering the fact that many Linux users moan about not being able > to run the latest "shiny" software, and sometimes even complain and > insist they want their MS Windows applications on their Linux > machines, I have to concede them, that this time systemd scored an > extra brownie point in their favour. This alone will be an extra > reason for any of them to choose systemd. > > I am saying this because Linux users are very diverse, with > experienced and knowledgeable system administrators being a small > minority. In my opinion, if Devuan want to be a competitor/alternative > it must provide the same functionality with reasonably the same effort > and efficiency. It is useless to tell the younger generations they > should lock themselves somewhere to research and study if they can > effectively do the same task with little to no effort. > > My biggest motivation to support Devuan and all "old style Linuxes" is > derived from the fact that I do not conform to a ready made recipe > telling me to do everything in a rigid way that often interferes with > how I want to use a computer. This very machine I am using right now > has a complicated setup with an independent boot-loader although the > GRUB2 developers made a huge effort to force users to use GRUB2 as an > integrated part of their installation. I remember when the changes > took place I immediately devised a workaround to have GRUB2 installed > in an independent way as I wanted it. Yes, there are many users who > would scold me for doing it the way I did it, but that is my choice. > When it proves itself to be less efficient than doing it "the right > way" it will be time for me to reconsider my choice. > > Now systemd is looming ahead with even more restrictions and lock-ins. > Keep it up people, choice is sacrosanct and fighting for it does not > come free of injuries. > > Edward > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
Considering the fact that many Linux users moan about not being able to run the latest "shiny" software, and sometimes even complain and insist they want their MS Windows applications on their Linux machines, I have to concede them, that this time systemd scored an extra brownie point in their favour. This alone will be an extra reason for any of them to choose systemd. I am saying this because Linux users are very diverse, with experienced and knowledgeable system administrators being a small minority. In my opinion, if Devuan want to be a competitor/alternative it must provide the same functionality with reasonably the same effort and efficiency. It is useless to tell the younger generations they should lock themselves somewhere to research and study if they can effectively do the same task with little to no effort. My biggest motivation to support Devuan and all "old style Linuxes" is derived from the fact that I do not conform to a ready made recipe telling me to do everything in a rigid way that often interferes with how I want to use a computer. This very machine I am using right now has a complicated setup with an independent boot-loader although the GRUB2 developers made a huge effort to force users to use GRUB2 as an integrated part of their installation. I remember when the changes took place I immediately devised a workaround to have GRUB2 installed in an independent way as I wanted it. Yes, there are many users who would scold me for doing it the way I did it, but that is my choice. When it proves itself to be less efficient than doing it "the right way" it will be time for me to reconsider my choice. Now systemd is looming ahead with even more restrictions and lock-ins. Keep it up people, choice is sacrosanct and fighting for it does not come free of injuries. Edward -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
On Mon, 8 Aug 2016 22:03:31 + (UTC) Go Linux wrote: > I posted a link to this response at the FDN link posted above. This > was the response from the author of the howto: > > http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=621972#p621972 > > He concludes: > > ". . . I would prefer to use the systemd-supplied components > (systemd-boot, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, etc) wherever > available as I believe this offers a more cohesive, UNIX-like working > environment." Brings back memories of reading "1984". SteveT Steve Litt August 2016 featured book: Manager's Guide to Technical Troubleshooting Brand new, second edition http://www.troubleshooters.com/mgr ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
On 09/08/16 06:03, Go Linux wrote: I posted a link to this response at the FDN link posted above. This was the response from the author of the howto: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=621972#p621972 He concludes: ". . . I would prefer to use the systemd-supplied components (systemd-boot, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, etc) wherever available as I believe this offers a more cohesive, UNIX-like working environment." That would depend on your definition of a 'UNIX-like working environment' IMO. In that context I believe it is along the lines of an environment where the same basic programming mistakes and logical fallacies are propagated over the maximum amount of system components. Thankfully there are still alternatives. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
On Sun, 8/7/16, Adam Borowski wrote: Subject: Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs. To: dng@lists.dyne.org Date: Sunday, August 7, 2016, 9:42 PM On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:31:10PM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: >> http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=621842#p621842 >> >> Excuse me for the topic title. But the above link at first looked like >> some inherent advantage in using SystemD. However, after a little >> reflection, a couple of minutes, it seems there are actually no extra >> brownie-points in using SystemD. >> >> This *appears* like an advantage SystemD users have over non-systemd >> users. But if Devuan allows the use of virtualisation software, the >> same can be achieved without requiring any sort of benediction >> SystemD. >> >> virtualbox is the Devuan 64 bit repository. So, the above is not an >> advantage but another way to make a cup of tea rather than the known >> ways. > > virtualbox is _not_ an equivalent. What virtualbox and qemu-kvm, or proprietary vmware and MS Hyper-V, do, is full machine virtualization. You put an entire operating system inside, with its own kernel, and it can be anything, even Windows or SCO ClosedServer if you fancy so. > systemd-nspawn is a worse clone of lxc which in turn is a worse remake of vserver and openvz. These run using host's kernel. > The difference between these two is mostly in efficiency and memory use. While for most devices (network, disk) the cost of full virtualization isn't significant (but always noticeable), the memory needs are MASSIVE. With OS-level virtualization, it costs you only for processes that are running. That's around 100KB for init (obvious snide skipped), 1.1MB for rsyslogd, perhaps 380KB for sshd if you dislike "vserver exec" or "lxc-attach" and that's it. Anything more are daemons that do productive work. It's not uncommon to put 400ish vservers on a single physical machine in production[1], or tens of thousands to prove a point. And on a load spike, any vserver can take most of the machine's memory and resources (of course, if others stay mostly quiet at that time), which works wonders if you do maintenance serially. On the other hand, full-machine virtualization costs you the max of assigned memory to that system, at all time. > systemd-nspawn, lxc and docker[2] are built upon chroot+unshare+cgroups+ seccomp. The purposes of those are: * chroot: separating the filesystem * unshare: separating namespaces. Of note are the mount namespace (a container can have mounts of its own), hostname, network (containers have their own IPs, routing tables, etc), user (you get to be root inside yet can't break the rest) * cgroups: resource limiting: caps and fair share of CPU/memory/IO/etc * seccomp: syscalls which could harm the rest of the system are vetoed > You can try playing with those on your own. Especially "unshare -n" (read the manpage) is fun! > But for a whole package, use lxc. It will configure all of the above for you. systemd-nspawn is merely a NIH copy of it. > > [1]. Depends on what your customers do, obviously. > [2]. Docker is mostly about what you put _inside_ the container, but can manage them on its own. > I posted a link to this response at the FDN link posted above. This was the response from the author of the howto: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=621972#p621972 He concludes: ". . . I would prefer to use the systemd-supplied components (systemd-boot, systemd-networkd, systemd-resolved, etc) wherever available as I believe this offers a more cohesive, UNIX-like working environment." That would depend on your definition of a 'UNIX-like working environment' IMO. golinux ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
On Mon, Aug 08, 2016 at 08:44:39AM +0300, Aldemir Akpinar wrote: > > Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:31:10PM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: > > > > On the other hand, full-machine virtualization costs you the max of > > assigned > > memory to that system, at all time. > > Going off-topic but I just wanted to correct this statement, when you're > using full machine virtualization in the worst case it will use all the > memory assigned to the server (unless you're using xen). Products like > vmware or hyper-v uses in memory deduplication and swapping the virtual > machine files to the disk to reduce the memory usage. qemu-kvm (but not virtualbox) has support for KSM which, at a noticeable CPU cost, deduplicates anonymous pages (on kvm all are anonymous) after a delay. Both qemu-kvm and virtualbox can swap, too, but in that case you have double swapping which means performance will be beyond terrible. On the other hand, processes which mmap the same file will share the pages at no cost or delay whatsoever. And under memory pressure, the system can drop those frames without pointlessly swapping them to the disk. -- An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
On 08/08/16 13:44, Aldemir Akpinar wrote: Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:31:10PM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: On the other hand, full-machine virtualization costs you the max of assigned memory to that system, at all time. Going off-topic but I just wanted to correct this statement, when you're using full machine virtualization in the worst case it will use all the memory assigned to the server (unless you're using xen). Products like vmware or hyper-v uses in memory deduplication and swapping the virtual machine files to the disk to reduce the memory usage. Just for the record, so does KVM if you turn on ksm. It actually works very well for a free solution. This is a tiny array of linux & windows VMs (5 linux / 3 windows). ksm effectively saves half the memory footprint. root@srv:~# ./ksmstat2 Shared memory is 488 MB Saved memory is 6557 MB Shared pages usage ratio is 13.43 Unshared pages usage ratio is .95 Sure, not as efficient as any of the containers, but then the containers can't run a blackberry BES or any of the other horrid windows software you sometimes have to run as part of day to day business life catering for others. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
> Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:31:10PM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: > > On the other hand, full-machine virtualization costs you the max of > assigned > memory to that system, at all time. > Going off-topic but I just wanted to correct this statement, when you're using full machine virtualization in the worst case it will use all the memory assigned to the server (unless you're using xen). Products like vmware or hyper-v uses in memory deduplication and swapping the virtual machine files to the disk to reduce the memory usage. -- aldemir ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
On Sun, Aug 07, 2016 at 06:31:10PM +0200, Edward Bartolo wrote: > http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=621842#p621842 > > Excuse me for the topic title. But the above link at first looked like > some inherent advantage in using SystemD. However, after a little > reflection, a couple of minutes, it seems there are actually no extra > brownie-points in using SystemD. > > This *appears* like an advantage SystemD users have over non-systemd > users. But if Devuan allows the use of virtualisation software, the > same can be achieved without requiring any sort of benediction > SystemD. > > virtualbox is the Devuan 64 bit repository. So, the above is not an > advantage but another way to make a cup of tea rather than the known > ways. virtualbox is _not_ an equivalent. What virtualbox and qemu-kvm, or proprietary vmware and MS Hyper-V, do, is full machine virtualization. You put an entire operating system inside, with its own kernel, and it can be anything, even Windows or SCO ClosedServer if you fancy so. systemd-nspawn is a worse clone of lxc which in turn is a worse remake of vserver and openvz. These run using host's kernel. The difference between these two is mostly in efficiency and memory use. While for most devices (network, disk) the cost of full virtualization isn't significant (but always noticeable), the memory needs are MASSIVE. With OS-level virtualization, it costs you only for processes that are running. That's around 100KB for init (obvious snide skipped), 1.1MB for rsyslogd, perhaps 380KB for sshd if you dislike "vserver exec" or "lxc-attach" and that's it. Anything more are daemons that do productive work. It's not uncommon to put 400ish vservers on a single physical machine in production[1], or tens of thousands to prove a point. And on a load spike, any vserver can take most of the machine's memory and resources (of course, if others stay mostly quiet at that time), which works wonders if you do maintenance serially. On the other hand, full-machine virtualization costs you the max of assigned memory to that system, at all time. systemd-nspawn, lxc and docker[2] are built upon chroot+unshare+cgroups+ seccomp. The purposes of those are: * chroot: separating the filesystem * unshare: separating namespaces. Of note are the mount namespace (a container can have mounts of its own), hostname, network (containers have their own IPs, routing tables, etc), user (you get to be root inside yet can't break the rest) * cgroups: resource limiting: caps and fair share of CPU/memory/IO/etc * seccomp: syscalls which could harm the rest of the system are vetoed You can try playing with those on your own. Especially "unshare -n" (read the manpage) is fun! But for a whole package, use lxc. It will configure all of the above for you. systemd-nspawn is merely a NIH copy of it. [1]. Depends on what your customers do, obviously. [2]. Docker is mostly about what you put _inside_ the container, but can manage them on its own. -- An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
Re: [DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
On 08/08/16 00:31, Edward Bartolo wrote: Hi All, http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=621842#p621842 Excuse me for the topic title. But the above link at first looked like some inherent advantage in using SystemD. However, after a little reflection, a couple of minutes, it seems there are actually no extra brownie-points in using SystemD. This *appears* like an advantage SystemD users have over non-systemd users. But if Devuan allows the use of virtualisation software, the same can be achieved without requiring any sort of benediction SystemD. Unless I'm mistaken, it looks like someone re-invented a more complicated chroot. ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
[DNG] SystemD's brownie points over non-systemd OSs.
Hi All, http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=16&p=621842#p621842 Excuse me for the topic title. But the above link at first looked like some inherent advantage in using SystemD. However, after a little reflection, a couple of minutes, it seems there are actually no extra brownie-points in using SystemD. This *appears* like an advantage SystemD users have over non-systemd users. But if Devuan allows the use of virtualisation software, the same can be achieved without requiring any sort of benediction SystemD. virtualbox is the Devuan 64 bit repository. So, the above is not an advantage but another way to make a cup of tea rather than the known ways. -- If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein ___ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
