Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
Some changes needed...Some changes needed...Posted Nov 28, 2012 2:02 UTC (Wed) by Eckhart (guest, #74500)In reply to: Some changes needed... by dlang Parent article: Langasek: Upstart in Debian
> however when people complain about how systemd should not be considered to be the standard init because it requires cgroups, which impose a significant performance hit on current systems, the answer that we get is that cgroups are an optional feature, systemd will work without cgroups, just not as well.
> you can't have it both ways, pick a story and stick with it.
Picked a story for you: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/cgroups-vs-cgroups.html
(Hint: if you don't know how "systemd" and "cgroups" relate, googling for both terms might help.)
(Log in to post comments)
Some changes needed... Posted Nov 28, 2012 16:50 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>Picked a story for you: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/cgroups-vs-cgroups.html
That document says "if you...disable the grouping feature entirely (A) then systemd will loudly complain at boot and proceed only reluctantly with a big warning and in a limited functionality mode". That sounds a lot like "a bog standard portable init wherever its highly specialised features are not available", which you claimed was impossible.
Some changes needed... Posted Nov 28, 2012 19:15 UTC (Wed) by Eckhart (guest, #74500) [Link]
> That document says "if you...disable the grouping feature entirely (A) then systemd will loudly complain at boot and proceed only reluctantly with a big warning and in a limited functionality mode". That sounds a lot like "a bog standard portable init wherever its highly specialised features are not available", which you claimed was impossible.
According to systemd developers "limited functionality mode" means "expect breakage" and "might allow you to compile a kernel with cgroups if you are lucky".
|
|||||||||||||