Re: End of hypocrisy ?
On Tue, 05 Aug 2014, Slavko wrote:
> To be precise, i often read about these things: monolitic, binary
> files and boot speed. I don't like first two and i am not interested
> in latest.
These are just accessible reasons. The main reason that I personally
voted for systemd over sysv is because systemd (and upstart) provide
correct boot sequencing in complex boot situations.
For example, if you're using iscsi, and need to start a daemon after the
network is up, iscsi is connected, lvm has resynced, and the appropriate
filesystems are mounted, this is trivial using systemd or upstart, but
very difficult using sysv.[1]
The other reason is we also get rid of thousands of lines of
difficult-to-maintain boilerplate in init scripts.
While sysv may be easier to debug in simple systems, there's a reason
why none of the CTTE members (myself included) voted for it.
1: Not impossible, but you basically end up replicating a dependency
boot system in shell, and necessarily introduce brittleness and delays.
--
Don Armstrong http://www.donarmstrong.com
"What, now?"
"Soon equates to good, later to worse, Uagen Zlepe, scholar.
Therefore, immediacy."
-- Iain M. Banks _Look to Windward_ p 213
Reply to: