| |||||||||||||
Poettering: The Biggest MythsPoettering: The Biggest MythsPosted Jan 27, 2013 15:18 UTC (Sun) by hazard (subscriber, #3695)In reply to: Poettering: The Biggest Myths by ovitters Parent article: Poettering: The Biggest Myths
Firstly I never wrote that I represent entire user-base. However, I do feel that many sysadmins share the same feelings about systemd as I do. At least I never heard praise of systemd from any of my peers.
systemd requires time to understand in its entirety. I'm not speaking about ability to start or stop particular service or init-script, I'm speaking about understanding the grand picture of how the new startup works in detail, what all those files in /lib/systemd mean and how they interact with each other.
Without having a good grasp on the startup process overall, one is unable to quickly troubleshoot issues. This causes a commercial risk of longer downtime, as sysadmins will take longer to bring the system up in case of a fault.
(Log in to post comments)
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 27, 2013 18:04 UTC (Sun) by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492) [Link]
So don't upgrade to a system that uses systemd.
What is the problem?
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 27, 2013 18:36 UTC (Sun) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] So don't upgrade to a system that uses systemd. The problem for me is I want the other updates to the other 99% of the software on the system. I am not a sysadmin by profession or by choice, but I need to be for the things I want to do with the system. Understanding the holistic and specific impacts of using of systemd for everything it takes to do what I want has taken me many hours, and I suspect it will take many more. But I am not going to introduce the even greater risk of switching to a different system to avoid using systemd.
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 27, 2013 18:49 UTC (Sun) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> systemd requires time to understand in its entirety.
Sysvinit based init schemes take orders of magnitudes more time and they even work differently on different distros.
> Without having a good grasp on the startup process overall, one is unable to quickly troubleshoot issues. This causes a commercial risk of longer downtime, as sysadmins will take longer to bring the system up in case of a fault.
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 27, 2013 23:13 UTC (Sun) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link] If the init system was intended to be changed every few years, then I'd understand your point. But it is one change in 10+ years (depending on distro, etc). So 'change is bad': agree. But this is a one-time change. Obviously there is pain in relearning things. But there are also loads of benefits, e.g. systemctl status $SERVICE actually gives meaningful output. Furthermore, you can have systemd reliably detect crashed services and have them restart automatically (no need for some monitor script). Things like this I see as hugely beneficial. One one server amavis dies every few months for reasons unknown. Restart and it'll work for months again. Pretty nice if that is supported instead of yet another monitoring script. Regarding representing the entire user-base, you said: Sorry, real life doesn't work this way. What people know DOES matter, what your existing customer base wants also DOES matter. I doubt anyone fully knows what (e.g. Fedora) users want. Maybe they want systemd, maybe not. You suggest that change is bad and to me you were trying to speak on behalf of everyone with above. Misread that.
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Jan 28, 2013 4:20 UTC (Mon) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
I am a sysadmin and have been for around 15 years and I think that systemd is awesome so now you have some praise from your peers 8-)
I find systemd to be thorough well thought out, and am excited after doing some troubleshooting that required interaction with systemctl, loginctl and journalctl by how simple it makes things. In a way it reminds me of OpenBSD, which I also find to be well organized. The problems it solves are not fundamentally difficult, starting processes in a controlled environment, and clears away a lot of confusion by just, doing, that.
Poettering: The Biggest Myths Posted Feb 6, 2013 5:45 UTC (Wed) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] But as the knots SysVinit would tie the system into (by willy-nilly starting stuff "in order" when some precondition was delayed for whatever reason, something didn't start because of a mistake and the whole line of dominoes came down leaving no clue) are next to impossible with systemd, this point is moot...
|
|||||||||||||