Confused as to the point of this.
Posted Jun 24, 2013 14:27 UTC (Mon) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588)
Posted Jun 24, 2013 15:20 UTC (Mon) by juliank (subscriber, #45896)
Posted Jun 24, 2013 16:25 UTC (Mon) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)
Posted Jun 24, 2013 21:20 UTC (Mon) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
For example, I might want to run Fedora 19 with systemd in a namespaced container.
Also, how systemd interface is it going to be exposed to containers? Is the attack surface small enough?
Posted Jun 25, 2013 18:05 UTC (Tue) by SEJeff (subscriber, #51588)
I'm just trying to understand what my future will entail as one of those said HPC peeps.
Posted Jun 24, 2013 15:31 UTC (Mon) by luto (subscriber, #39314)
I do think it might be nice if, in the new single-hierarchy regime, systemd could be make to work without cgroups. (Alternative, the cgroup-hierarchy-that-controls-nothing that systemd needs could, perhaps, be allowed to work separately from the real cgroup hierarchy, so systemd could have a mode where it stays away from the latter.)
Posted Jun 24, 2013 16:10 UTC (Mon) by sbohrer (guest, #61058)
Posted Jun 24, 2013 16:32 UTC (Mon) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103)
This all is gradual thing: the kernel will support split AND unified hiearchies for a time, and so will systemd. Then, systemd will allow other code to change the cgroup fs for some time, but eventually will be more restrictive and log every such change. In the long run on systemd systems we'll enforce single-hierarchy and single-writer strictly.
Posted Jun 24, 2013 21:08 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
It's a rule, not law. There are couple of exceptions: even though user-space interfaces are supposed to be maintained forever, they sometimes do change—after a long deprecation period and If there's nobody around to see it, did it really break?
cgroups will obviously follow the slow path
Posted Jun 25, 2013 5:24 UTC (Tue) by suckfish (guest, #69919)
I wonder, if cgroups had been single-writer when systemd was conceived, would systemd have been written as the one-and-only single writer or would it have found a way to cooperate more democratically with other users?
Posted Jun 25, 2013 5:52 UTC (Tue) by dlang (subscriber, #313)
There's no reason to force a single writer just because they are eliminating the confusion of contradictory hierarchies.
Posted Jul 6, 2013 22:22 UTC (Sat) by eternaleye (subscriber, #67051)
Posted Jul 6, 2013 22:25 UTC (Sat) by eternaleye (subscriber, #67051)
* The configurations aren't independent. e.g. for weight-based
controllers, your weight is only meaningful in relation to other
weights at that level. Distributing configuration to whatever
entities which may write to cgroupfs simply cannot work. It's
That means that anyone could set a stupidly high weight, and starve their peers. You could do double-nesting hacks to isolate that, sure, but that gets painful and stupid very quickly.
Posted Jul 6, 2013 22:27 UTC (Sat) by eternaleye (subscriber, #67051)
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds