Hello, Andy. On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 04:27:17PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > I guess what I'm trying to say here is that many systems will rather > fundamentally use systemd. Admins of those systems should still have > access to a reasonably large subset of cgroup functionality. If the > single-hierarchy model is going to prevent going around systemd and if > systemd isn't going to expose all of the useful cgroup functionality, > then perhaps there should be a way to separate systemd's hierarchy > from the cgroup hierarchy.
I don't think systemd will prevent you from buildling your own hierarchy on the side. It sure won't be properly supported and things might break in corener cases / over time but if you're willing to take such risks anyway... In the long term tho, what should happen probably is examining use cases like yours and then incorporating sensible mechanisms to support that into the base system infrastructure. It might not be completely identical but I'm sure over time we'll be able to find what are the fundamental pieces and proper abstractions. Right now, we're exposing way too much without even clearly understanding what are being enabled. It is unsustainable. Thanks. -- tejun _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
