Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
Scott Ferguson wrote:
On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
Scott Ferguson wrote:
Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.
On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
I wonder... What is a better alternative? And it can't be sysvinit.
Yes. Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's been
patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged to get it to do things that
weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception. It's long past
due for a contemporary replacement. Whatever that may be.
So, what would you all propose? For a server? Or for a user desktop?
Or something that fulfills both scenarios? And why?
One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
desktop and a server - just degrees.
Um, yes, there is. Typically different hardware (headless for
starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well
as different role, and so forth.
Miles
With respect, you're just repeating your claim that there is a clear
distinction between server and desktop - not proving it, which doesn't
advance the discussion.
Ok, let's start with:
- it's the rare desktop that has a fiber channel interface
- it's the rare desktop that has an interface for dual-ported disk drives
- it's the rare desktop configuration that splits processing and storage
(e.g., blade servers + storage servers)
- in servers, large RAID arrays are common, desktops might have a pair
of mirrored disks, never seen anybody set up a desktop for RAID5,6,10
- these days, servers are generally run in clusters, with cluster file
systems, and environments like openstack on top of them
- when it comes to performance, desktops generally emphasize graphics
performance (e.g., for gaming, video editing, and such); servers are
designed more for how many virtual machines they can run
- high-availability clustering is a big data center concern, not a
desktop concern (anybody run DRBD, or Corosync on a dekstop?)
- when it comes to virtualization, on desktops its mostly for running
programs in other environments; for servers its mostly about supporting
lots of independent users and services
- when's the last time you saw a desktop or laptop with an IPMI BMC (or
for that matter, had a BMC infected by a virus - not pretty) (note: if
you don't know what BMC stands for, then go away and learn something
about serious data centers, before weighing in on the distinctions
between desktops and servers)
- scalability, optimization for transaction processing, high-volume mail
processing, etc., etc., etc. - not issues that one worries about on the
desktop
Samba is a server, as is NFS, and apache. If you run them on a desktop
is it still *just* a desktop?
Can you not run a desktop on server hardware?
Generally not - except remotely - given that most servers are headless
and don't have graphics boards. Yeah, one can X- into a server, if you
install the software. Many (most?) don't - CLI and various management
tools is plenty good for server admin (along with lots of bash scripts -
one of the reasons that a lot of sysadmins don't like systemd).
Can you not run a server on desktop hardware?
Not if you're supporting a serious load - unless you're clustering lots
of machines (but once you cluster a few hundred motherboards, you're
talking a desktop machine, you're talking a cluster).
I don't "believe" you've thought this through... :
I'll leave pulseaudio out, just to make things simpler (and acknowledge
that "simple" is a synonym for "dumb").
I don't believe you have any knowledge whatsoever about data centers or
real servers - and are talking through your hat. That you even mention
audio in the same conversation as
servers says you're in a different universe.
Kind regards
P.S. I have been told that one major distro does (or is attempting to
do) just that - separate into a 'server' and a 'desktop' distribution.
Let's see:
- IBM doesn't do desktops
- Windows has very separate desktop and server-side editions
- MacOS comes in separate flavors
- BSDs are primarily server oriented
- Until recently, most Linux distros were server oriented - particularly
Debian, I might add -- Linux on the desktop is a new phenomenon
- Solaris is mostly a server side o/s (workstations are small servers,
not large desktops)
- In the Linux world Ubuntu comes in desktop, server, and cloud varieties
- RHEL is almost entirely server oriented (can you say "Enterprise",
Gluster, JBoss, ....?)
- SUSE has desktop, server, and cloud varieties
Again - if you didn't know that, then you're talking out of ignorance.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Reply to: