On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 05:24:57PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: > I'll have more to say about the relative merits of the two init systems > later, but one thing I wanted to not briefly: this exercise was extremely > valuable in helping me get a more realistic picture of both init systems. > I had gone into this exercise with the vague impression that they were > roughly at feature parity, and now realize that is not the case. > My impression now is that systemd's init and service management component > is a substantially more mature piece of software. That's an odd thing to > say given that upstart is older, but systemd has the feel of software > that's been tested against a wide variety of different situations and has > had the necessary adaptations and configuration added to meet those needs. > In some cases, that's "simply" additional features; in some cases, that's > more comprehensive and more scalable design. The socket activation system > in particular is night and day between the two systems. So to respond specifically to this point about the "night and day" difference between the socket-based activation systems: yes, upstart upstream has not invested in fleshing out its socket-based activation support, because earlier investigations led us to believe that socket-based activation is a red herring that will never deliver the promised benefits. The feature was made available for those who might prefer to start their services without the need for writing socket-handling code; but in my estimation, the flaws wrt system startup (which as far as I can see also affect the systemd implementation) make it altogether unsuitable for any services you're expecting to have started at boot, and we have deliberately avoided its use in Ubuntu. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature