Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
On Wednesday, October 22, 2014 3:20:05 PM UTC+5:30, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 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.
Are you guys just having fun talking past each other?
Or seriously dont know the two meanings of 'server'?
First two here: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/server
Reply to: