Re: [gentoo-user] Re: technical review of systemd
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht nsebre...@piing.fr wrote: [snip] The way systemd services handle network whatever network manager you enable is the last thing preventing me from using systemd on servers. Seting up manual advanced setups on systemd looks crappy (if even possible with the provided tools) compared to OpenRC. Notice that iproute2 is the default everywhere for long time, here. The OpenRC comprehensive configuration set for network management is actually what I would expect in systemd. Perhaps they are starting small? I don't know; from what I've read, they want something small for simple cases, and if you need more you can use NetworkManager, connman, iproute2, or whatever. But then you had to configure it yourself. [snip] And, by the way, someone make me notice that netctl is an Arch'ism, and that the command-line front-end for networkd is actually networkctl. Yes, it was taken from Arch in order to allow better network support for advanced configurations whitout requiring to write yet another tool. Nothing was taken from Arch, I believe. networkctl and netctl had nothing to do with each other. The thing is that I would expect systemd to handle the whole thing on its own (with the help of iproute2) so that services have nice grain-level dependencies. If someone writes support for this and convinces the systemd maintainers that is a good idea, I think they would accept the patches. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: technical review of systemd
On Feb 25, 2014 10:40 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:38 AM, Nicolas Sebrecht nsebre...@piing.fr wrote: [snip] The way systemd services handle network whatever network manager you enable is the last thing preventing me from using systemd on servers. Seting up manual advanced setups on systemd looks crappy (if even possible with the provided tools) compared to OpenRC. Notice that iproute2 is the default everywhere for long time, here. The OpenRC comprehensive configuration set for network management is actually what I would expect in systemd. Perhaps they are starting small? I don't know; from what I've read, they want something small for simple cases, and if you need more you can use NetworkManager, connman, iproute2, or whatever. But then you had to configure it yourself. [snip] And, by the way, someone make me notice that netctl is an Arch'ism, and that the command-line front-end for networkd is actually networkctl. Yes, it was taken from Arch in order to allow better network support for advanced configurations whitout requiring to write yet another tool. Nothing was taken from Arch, I believe. networkctl and netctl had nothing to do with each other. The thing is that I would expect systemd to handle the whole thing on its own (with the help of iproute2) so that services have nice grain-level dependencies. If someone writes support for this and convinces the systemd maintainers that is a good idea, I think they would accept the patches. BTW, here is an overview of networkd by its author: https://coreos.com/blog/intro-to-systemd-networkd/ Regards.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: technical review of systemd
Am 25.02.2014 12:38, schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: The way systemd services handle network whatever network manager you enable is the last thing preventing me from using systemd on servers. Seting up manual advanced setups on systemd looks crappy (if even possible with the provided tools) compared to OpenRC. Yes. My current itch to scratch: set up a bonding of 2 physical NICs with systemd on gentoo. I didn't google for very long but didn't find much aside from arch linux howtos using netctl etc (which I don't know and therefore trust so much) And the network.service-files I copied and modified back then (the archives of this very ml show some of them) feel really somehow weak in a way. Aside from that I feel quite good with using systemd on all of my local gentoo systems right now (and 2 productive servers at customers .. a 3rd to come). Back then I gave it a try to simply learn by doing: ... Is it complex, is it hard to learn or use, how does it work, do I understand it, do I like the concepts ... just experience it by myself and know my way if I have to use it somewhere. I still don't judge it as good or bad. It's a choice right now. Ah, yes, and suggestions welcome for that bonded interface ;-) Stefan
