[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd

2014/07/08 5:48 "Neal Murphy" <neal.p.murphy@alum.wpi.edu>:
> On Monday, July 07, 2014 03:49:52 PM Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Am 07.07.2014 21:29, schrieb Andrei POPESCU:
> > > To prove my point (on a laptop with LXDE and just a few services):
> > > $ grep sleep /etc/init.d/* | wc -l
> > > 27
> > > $ ls /etc/init.d/* | wc -l
> > > 75
> >
> > Yup, the boot speed improvements come from doing things correctly and
> > event based. Socket activation doesn't necessarily mean things are
> > delayed but simply that explicit orderings are unnecessary.
> >
> > The numbers you have posted are depressing, but doing that over the
> > complete archive is even more so.
> >
> > The last time I did an archive wide check on this was early 2014, at
> > that time we had 1235 SysV init scripts and 1124 occurences of sleep.
> Whatever happened to semaphores (flags)? Seems to me that if a daemon is a
> dependency, the second-last startup thing it should do is connect to itself
> (since it may well be asynchronous); on success, it should run a flag up the
> pole (touch a file somewhere) to tell the world that it is up and ready to
> process requests. All of its dependents should wait for that flag to appear
> before they make their own services available. And later during operation,
> removal of the flag should cause dependent daemons to withdraw their services.

Near as I can tell, systemd is  the MacGuffin that might finally get the services projects to agree on a standard way of telling each other that their services are up. I suppose that's one possible upside to all this.

Reply to: