FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-16-2012, 08:57 AM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default Migration to systemd

Am 15.08.2012 20:26, schrieb Andrea Scarpino:
> I don't know who write that (neither I wanna know), but you pointed out
> something true, so I already removed the "official" suffix from our page and
> "fixed" the post about systemd. I hope this is ok now.

Thank you.
 
Old 08-16-2012, 01:08 PM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 16 August 2012 01:21, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait?
>> What's wrong with waiting another year, and see if you don't see so
>> many problems then? What's the hurry to break people's systems?
>
> Felipe, we've been doing that all along. This _is_ in the process of
> 'another year', and we there was never any hurry. We have had a TODO
> list for the unit files for some time, and now we have made it a
> priority to complete it. In the meantime, we expect bugs will be
> reported from testers, and they will be fixed. I think you have
> misunderstood the situation; nobody's making any kind of 'move'
> tomorrow.

So if this is the 'another year' does that mean this *must* go in this
year? No. If systemd is still not ready, why force it? Wait another
year. And if the next year it's still not ready, then the next one.

Why break systems *now*? Clearly there are problems with systemd (I
see a lot of them in arch-general).

Even if you were not seeing problems now, you should expect problems
when deploying (as the machines affected would be many more). So if
you are seeing problems *now*, that's a good sign that you shouldn't
go forward, even if you manage to fix all the currently known
problems.

Cheers.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-16-2012, 01:43 PM
Brandon Watkins
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Rashif Ray Rahman <schiv@archlinux.org>
> wrote:
> > On 16 August 2012 01:21, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> So, if you *already* know that there are problems, why not wait?
> >> What's wrong with waiting another year, and see if you don't see so
> >> many problems then? What's the hurry to break people's systems?
> >
> > Felipe, we've been doing that all along. This _is_ in the process of
> > 'another year', and we there was never any hurry. We have had a TODO
> > list for the unit files for some time, and now we have made it a
> > priority to complete it. In the meantime, we expect bugs will be
> > reported from testers, and they will be fixed. I think you have
> > misunderstood the situation; nobody's making any kind of 'move'
> > tomorrow.
>
> So if this is the 'another year' does that mean this *must* go in this
> year? No. If systemd is still not ready, why force it? Wait another
> year. And if the next year it's still not ready, then the next one.
>
> Why break systems *now*? Clearly there are problems with systemd (I
> see a lot of them in arch-general).
>
> Even if you were not seeing problems now, you should expect problems
> when deploying (as the machines affected would be many more). So if
> you are seeing problems *now*, that's a good sign that you shouldn't
> go forward, even if you manage to fix all the currently known
> problems.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras
>
A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the
fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time
ago).

of course you will see people posting to the mailing list/bbs/irc with
systemd issues, because *those are the places people go for help*. People
post about issues with sysvinit/initscripts too. "I saw some a few people
post with issues with systemd on the mailing list" is hardly a valid metric
of whether its production ready or not. Systemd has already undergone a
fair amount of testing in arch, many people were using it when it was in
the aur, and many more when it made it to the repos. The experience has
already smoothed out significantly. Teething issues will happen and will be
dealt with.
 
Old 08-16-2012, 01:47 PM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:

> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
> systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the
> fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time
> ago).

It is best to do it sooner? Why? In order to maximize the breakage?

No. It is best to do it later; to minimize the problems.

Cheers.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-16-2012, 02:15 PM
Brandon Watkins
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it.
> Its
> > best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
> > systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the
> > fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time
> > ago).
>
> It is best to do it sooner? Why? In order to maximize the breakage?
>
> No. It is best to do it later; to minimize the problems.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras
>
Doing it later does not necessarily "minimize" problems, in fact it can
sometimes exacerbate problems.
 
Old 08-16-2012, 02:16 PM
Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
>> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
>> systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the
>> fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time
>> ago).
>
> It is best to do it sooner? Why? In order to maximize the breakage?

You see, that's the attitude that really enfuriates me. Why post in
such a provocative tone? He gave his arguments, you didn't reply. You
just bitch cause you don't want to spend the time to fix your
problems. I sent you some hints to debug systemd boot process and you
ignored it. And now I will send you another one (see, I'm in a
pacifist mood today):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems

I've found it in the bottom of the Arch wiki page for systemd. So,
it's not hard to find information on how to solve problems.

And remember, Arch is not about holding hands of any user. We should
be competent enough to deal with our own problems. If you have to ask
for help, you should be competent at it too, asking politely, doing
your part, etc.

--
A: Because it obfuscates the reading.
Q: Why is top posting so bad?
For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html

-------------------------------------------
Denis A. Altoe Falqueto
Linux user #524555
-------------------------------------------
 
Old 08-16-2012, 02:17 PM
Paul Gideon Dann
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Wednesday 15 Aug 2012 18:54:24 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > Forking processes does not copy binaries.
>
> Pulled out of silence for the very very last time.
>
> It copies the parent which is much larger is what I meant. A real
> problem for embedded where memory fragmentation matters to the point
> that Google had code written just to handle it. The smaller the device,
> the greater the issue tends to be.

I don't think this is true. If I understand correctly, the code segment of
the executable image is shared between forks, meaning that the binary size is
irrelevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28operating_system%29

Paul
 
Old 08-16-2012, 07:12 PM
Kevin Chadwick
 
Default Migration to systemd

> On Wednesday 15 Aug 2012 18:54:24 Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> > > Forking processes does not copy binaries.
> >
> > Pulled out of silence for the very very last time.
> >
> > It copies the parent which is much larger is what I meant. A real
> > problem for embedded where memory fragmentation matters to the point
> > that Google had code written just to handle it. The smaller the device,
> > the greater the issue tends to be.
>
> I don't think this is true. If I understand correctly, the code segment of
> the executable image is shared between forks, meaning that the binary size is
> irrelevant.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28operating_system%29
>
> Paul

Thanks for the link. I understand a little more. I'm not completely
clear yet but it seems that it is not as significant as I thought for
Android assuming the speed increase of parallelism is greater than
the extra work in COW which may be on slow memory though Google have
made a custom far more memory efficient init than SysV even, so I can't
see it happening.

http://www.netbsd.org/docs/kernel/vfork.html

For deep/true embedded systems with only vfork and no COW it seems
you are right and the simple explanation of vfork is actually inaccurate
these days however the parent has to be blocked to utilise the parents
memory but once the exec has happend which could be quick the parent is
unblocked so maybe systemd could be made compatible with a kind of
parallelism. I guess it would take a lot more work and absolutely
required memory usage would have to be reduced significantly in any
case.


Lennart said systemd will only ever run on Linux and is only designed
for a full fledged Fedora but is useful on embedded too. However I
don't think he realised what level the Linux embedded world could
expand to.

--
__________________________________________________ _____________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy)
__________________________________________________ _____________________
 
Old 08-16-2012, 08:37 PM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:

> Doing it later does not necessarily "minimize" problems, in fact it can
> sometimes exacerbate problems.

No it doesn't, quite the opposite actually.

Here, I'm going to do something that you are not doing, not just make
an unsupported statement, but actually show an argument: the more
mature a piece of software is, the less likely it is you are going to
hit a bug.

Can you do the same? Not just say "X is true", but "X is true because
Y", if you don't, then there's no value in your statements.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-16-2012, 08:43 PM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Migration to systemd

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:16 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
<denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 10:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Brandon Watkins <bwat47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> A big switch like this will have problems regardless of when you do it. Its
>>> best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with. For most people
>>> systemd seems to work fine and is production ready (also evidenced by the
>>> fact that some other major distros have already made the switch some time
>>> ago).
>>
>> It is best to do it sooner? Why? In order to maximize the breakage?
>
> You see, that's the attitude that really enfuriates me. Why post in
> such a provocative tone? He gave his arguments, you didn't reply.

No, he didn't, he made a totally unsupported claim with no evidence,
and not even an argument "Its
best to do it soon and get the teething issues over with.".

The rest of his arguments are irrelevant, and in order to tackle them
one would need to understand that it's impossible to prove a negative,
but you seem to be unable to understand that, so I'm not going to try
to explain it.

But there's no point in even trying, because even if we assume he is
right for the sake of argument (systemd is quite ready (it's not)),
that still doesn't invalidate the first argument: the later the move,
the safer.

> You
> just bitch cause you don't want to spend the time to fix your
> problems. I sent you some hints to debug systemd boot process and you
> ignored it. And now I will send you another one (see, I'm in a
> pacifist mood today):
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems
>
> I've found it in the bottom of the Arch wiki page for systemd. So,
> it's not hard to find information on how to solve problems.

Please. Not even Lennart was able to help me with my problem. Stop
assuming there was/is an easy solution.

Cheers.

--
Felipe Contreras
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:25 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org