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 General Discussion

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-15-2012, 06:38 AM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/08/12 at 04:01am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 15/08/12 at 03:35am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>
>> >> I just became aware that Arch Linux plans to switch to systemd, and
>> >> this worries me for several reasons.
>> >>
>> >> snip
>> >
>> > I am running it on both my home machines and my work laptop. I have full
>> > encryption on all three devices and LVM and Raid1 on two of them. Boot time is
>> > not considerably faster, but shutdown is.
>> >
>> > I have not had any problems migrating or running the three machines in the
>> > intervening fortnight.
>>
>> So you have 3 data-points. There's plenty of different machines and
>> configurations out there, and the way you present your arguments seems
>> to suggest that because you didn't have any problems, that proves that
>> nobody out there can *possibly* have issues with systemd.
>>
> No - I made no such overarching claims; I just countered your experience with my
> own.

I see, but that is irrelevant. Yo only need one data-point to prove a
positive, and it's impossible to prove a negative.

>> I believe the opposite; even if you have tested in one thousand
>> machines, the *possibility* still remains.
>
> Yes, the possibility exists; that is hardly a reason to spread FUD on the list
> though, is it?

So I think Arch Linux will probably hit issues, and you think it's FUD
to say "hey Arch Linux, I think you might hit issues"?

>> > I think your concerns are largely unfounded and your alarmist tone does no
>> > credit to the Arch developers who have given this some consideration and have
>> > implemented it in a typically thorough and professional manner.
>>
>> I tend to not believe things without evidence, and not believe because
>> of some "authority" says it's true. I will believe there was some
>> careful analysis, when I see the result of the analysis in a
>> summarized form as the Google DVCS analysis. If the benefits are well
>> known, and the disadvantages minded, it shouldn't be difficult to
>> write such a summary. Would it?
>>
> I look forward to your analysis (which by your own criteria will need to include
> > 1000 machines, presumably); or are you expecting someone else will do this
> to satisfy your demands for scientific rigour?

Why should I do the analysis? Are you saying that Arch Linux
developers didn't do any analysis? Surely they did, it's just not
summarized and publicized. And no, you don't need to test 1000
machines to make an analysis.

Cheers.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-15-2012, 06:39 AM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Denis A. Alto Falqueto
<denisfalqueto@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm sure in due time systemd will be ready, and will have nice
>> advantages, but I doubt that's the case right now. Has anybody looked
>> into the CONFIG_HZ issue? I doubt that.
>
> Arch's stock kernel:
>
> $ zgrep CONFIG_HZ /proc/config.gz
> # CONFIG_HZ_100 is not set
> # CONFIG_HZ_250 is not set
> CONFIG_HZ_300=y
> # CONFIG_HZ_1000 is not set
> CONFIG_HZ=300
>
> Systemd is working fine enough. A counter example shoud invalidate
> your argument that CONFIG_HZ is the culprit.

That doesn't prove anything, your machine is not my machine.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-15-2012, 06:42 AM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:33 AM, Leon Feng <rainofchaos@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Finally, it's much harder to debug. If you have a problem you will not
>> be able to open a script and figure out what is happening, and perhaps
>> modify it, and debug it. You would be greeted with an unmodified
>> binary, and the source code would be along these lines:
>>
>> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/remount-fs/remount-fs.c
>>
>
> The fact is you do not need to debug these scripts anymore. One
> foo.service is tested ok in one distro, it will be push into upstream
> and all other distro can just use it.

Yes, you need to debug them, because they are not self-contained, the
interact with the rest of the system. So what the C file does in your
system is not what it does on my system; it depends on countless other
things, such as configuration.

> When blame the C file here, do not forget most of the program you use
> is using C. The problem with bash script is they can not be
> used/shared between different distro. So every distro has to maintain
> their own script. It is a waste of time and resources.

Yes they can. Code is code, language doesn't make a piece of code more
share-able between distros than others.

Cheers.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-15-2012, 06:50 AM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> Felipe,
>
> On Aug 15, 2012 3:35 AM, "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I tried systemd a while ago in a brand new machine with Arch Linux and
>> the boot was *much slower*. After some exchanges with Lennart
>> Poettering and other people in Google+[1], it became clear I was on my
>> own. Eventually I found the culprit: Fedora uses CONFIG_HZ_1000, and
>> Arch Linux uses CONFIG_HZ_300. It became clear to me that systemd was
>> not ready for prime time, it wasn't thoroughly tested in a lot of
>> machines, and if you have problems Lennart Poettering will blame you
>> (PulseAudio sounds familiar?).
>
> Do you have a link to a proper bug report for this issue? I tried reading
> the Google+ thread but I couldn't stomach how rude you were in each of your
> messages (including the first one) so stopped reading.

No, I don't have such report.

>> systemd was the reason I stopped using Fedora in the first place; when
>> they moved to it my machine stopped booting reliably. My configuration
>> was non-standard (a single encrypted partition), so I guess they never
>> tested that. Similarly, I expect many Arch Linux users to bite these
>> corner-cases.
>
> Please note that we have waited much longer than Fedora did to make sure
> the corner cases have been taken care of. Is this problem still an issue,
> or is it just FUD? Link to (current) bug report?

I don't have that machine available at the moment, but I don't see how
such an issue could have been fixed given the lack of interest from
Lennart in that G+ post.

I'd say this issue most likely is not fixed, but it's only an example.
Just like one this there might be more.

>> Finally, it's much harder to debug. If you have a problem you will not
>> be able to open a script and figure out what is happening, and perhaps
>> modify it, and debug it. You would be greeted with an unmodified
>> binary, and the source code would be along these lines:
>>
>>
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/remount-fs/remount-fs.c
>
> As someone who has spent a lot of time debugging both, I much prefer
> systemd. I think you are being disingenuous here, surely you don't have a
> problem reading C?

And I prefer sh. Preferences don't count for much. I do read and write
C everyday for probably for more than 10 years now, yet I do have
trouble reading systemd's code, but that's not important, what is
important is that in order to test my modifications (to add debugging
for example), I would need to *recompile*.

>> I'm sure in due time systemd will be ready, and will have nice
>> advantages, but I doubt that's the case right now. Has anybody looked
>> into the CONFIG_HZ issue? I doubt that.
>
> This is the first I hear of it. I'd be interested to follow up if there is
> a proper bug report without unnecessary hostility.

Not to my knowledge.

>> I was expecting more from the Arch Linux community, something along
>> the lines of Google's analysis to pick to mercurial[2], but so far I
>> have only seen a couple of people saying +1 in the development mailing
>> list, with barely any explanation at all. Such an important move (one
>> that might make users' machines stop booting) should warrant at least
>> an analysis of some sort, with clear advantages. Would it not?
>
> We provided systemd optionally for a long time, as you know. Its pros and
> cons have been discussed at the various making lists at great length. A
> significant portion of our userbase has switched to it, and no serious
> issues seem to remain, based on the feedback we have been getting. Each dev
> will have had the possibility of trying it, and researching it. They will
> have done their own analysis on which the +1s are based. I see no value in
> providing an official public analysis. That's not how we work, and it would
> not help in the decision making at this point.

Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me
a skeptic.

> That's not to say that an analysis would not be an interesting read, and
> I'm sure people like Allan our Jason will provide some excellent blog posts
> about this at some point.

One can only hope.

Cheers.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-15-2012, 06:57 AM
Oon-Ee Ng
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:>
> Yes they can. Code is code, language doesn't make a piece of code more
> share-able between distros than others.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras

Do you even know what .service files look like and how they work? Your
statement would make just as much sense if you'd said "env variables
don't translate from distro to distro"....
 
Old 08-15-2012, 07:01 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't have that machine available at the moment, but I don't see how
> such an issue could have been fixed given the lack of interest from
> Lennart in that G+ post.

Without the insults, this would have been picked up on and sorted out
a long time ago. At least based on my experience.

> I do read and write
> C everyday for probably for more than 10 years now, yet I do have
> trouble reading systemd's code, but that's not important, what is
> important is that in order to test my modifications (to add debugging
> for example), I would need to *recompile*.

I'm aware that you are a professional, that's why I find your claims
about the difficulty of understanding/recompiling... odd. By contrast,
my C skills/experience are virtually nonexistent, and yet I have had
no problems understanding/debugging/recompiling/patching the systemd
code.

> Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me
> a skeptic.

That's ok. We are not in the PR business, we are not selling anything.

-t
 
Old 08-15-2012, 07:02 AM
Jason Ryan
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On 15/08/12 at 08:38am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15/08/12 at 04:01am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:51 AM, Jason Ryan <jasonwryan@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On 15/08/12 at 03:35am, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I just became aware that Arch Linux plans to switch to systemd, and
> >> >> this worries me for several reasons.
> >> >>
> >> >> snip
> >> >
> >> > I am running it on both my home machines and my work laptop. I have full
> >> > encryption on all three devices and LVM and Raid1 on two of them. Boot time is
> >> > not considerably faster, but shutdown is.
> >> >
> >> > I have not had any problems migrating or running the three machines in the
> >> > intervening fortnight.
> >>
> >> So you have 3 data-points. There's plenty of different machines and
> >> configurations out there, and the way you present your arguments seems
> >> to suggest that because you didn't have any problems, that proves that
> >> nobody out there can *possibly* have issues with systemd.
> >>
> > No - I made no such overarching claims; I just countered your experience with my
> > own.
>
> I see, but that is irrelevant. Yo only need one data-point to prove a
> positive, and it's impossible to prove a negative.
>
> >> I believe the opposite; even if you have tested in one thousand
> >> machines, the *possibility* still remains.
> >
> > Yes, the possibility exists; that is hardly a reason to spread FUD on the list
> > though, is it?
>
> So I think Arch Linux will probably hit issues, and you think it's FUD
> to say "hey Arch Linux, I think you might hit issues"?
>
You have “issues”. Your thread title, your baseless extrapolation of your own
experience to all of Arch are classic FUD.[0]

> >> > I think your concerns are largely unfounded and your alarmist tone does no
> >> > credit to the Arch developers who have given this some consideration and have
> >> > implemented it in a typically thorough and professional manner.
> >>
> >> I tend to not believe things without evidence, and not believe because
> >> of some "authority" says it's true. I will believe there was some
> >> careful analysis, when I see the result of the analysis in a
> >> summarized form as the Google DVCS analysis. If the benefits are well
> >> known, and the disadvantages minded, it shouldn't be difficult to
> >> write such a summary. Would it?
> >>
> > I look forward to your analysis (which by your own criteria will need to include
> > > 1000 machines, presumably); or are you expecting someone else will do this
> > to satisfy your demands for scientific rigour?
>
> Why should I do the analysis? Are you saying that Arch Linux
> developers didn't do any analysis? Surely they did, it's just not
> summarized and publicized.

Please don't attempt to put words into my mouth; it is (more) classic trolling.[1]


0. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
1. http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

--

http://jasonwryan.com/ [GnuPG Key: B1BD4E40]
 
Old 08-15-2012, 07:24 AM
Felipe Contreras
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't have that machine available at the moment, but I don't see how
>> such an issue could have been fixed given the lack of interest from
>> Lennart in that G+ post.
>
> Without the insults, this would have been picked up on and sorted out
> a long time ago. At least based on my experience.

That's a loss for systemd, not for me. And I didn't insult anybody,
Lennart did, so it's not my fault.

>> I do read and write
>> C everyday for probably for more than 10 years now, yet I do have
>> trouble reading systemd's code, but that's not important, what is
>> important is that in order to test my modifications (to add debugging
>> for example), I would need to *recompile*.
>
> I'm aware that you are a professional, that's why I find your claims
> about the difficulty of understanding/recompiling... odd. By contrast,
> my C skills/experience are virtually nonexistent, and yet I have had
> no problems understanding/debugging/recompiling/patching the systemd
> code.

It's not my claims, it's a fact; compiling is more complicated than
not-compiling (one step less), and you need a compiler, and linker
(and in some systems development packages), and sometimes deploying
the binaries. With scripting you don't need any of that; after you are
done editing the text (which you have to do regardless), you are done.

>> Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me
>> a skeptic.
>
> That's ok. We are not in the PR business, we are not selling anything.

You are selling a distribution. When Arch Linux stops giving the users
what they want, the users will go for a different distribution. That's
how distributions die; when something better is on the market for most
of their users.

Cheers.

--
Felipe Contreras
 
Old 08-15-2012, 07:39 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me
>>> a skeptic.
>>
>> That's ok. We are not in the PR business, we are not selling anything.
>
> You are selling a distribution.

We are? Damn. Where is my cut. Allan!?

-t
 
Old 08-15-2012, 07:55 AM
Leon Feng
 
Default Think twice before moving to systemd

2012/8/15 Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I don't have that machine available at the moment, but I don't see how
>>> such an issue could have been fixed given the lack of interest from
>>> Lennart in that G+ post.
>>
>> Without the insults, this would have been picked up on and sorted out
>> a long time ago. At least based on my experience.
>
> That's a loss for systemd, not for me. And I didn't insult anybody,
> Lennart did, so it's not my fault.
>
>>> I do read and write
>>> C everyday for probably for more than 10 years now, yet I do have
>>> trouble reading systemd's code, but that's not important, what is
>>> important is that in order to test my modifications (to add debugging
>>> for example), I would need to *recompile*.
>>
>> I'm aware that you are a professional, that's why I find your claims
>> about the difficulty of understanding/recompiling... odd. By contrast,
>> my C skills/experience are virtually nonexistent, and yet I have had
>> no problems understanding/debugging/recompiling/patching the systemd
>> code.
>
> It's not my claims, it's a fact; compiling is more complicated than
> not-compiling (one step less), and you need a compiler, and linker
> (and in some systems development packages), and sometimes deploying
> the binaries. With scripting you don't need any of that; after you are
> done editing the text (which you have to do regardless), you are done.
>
>>> Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me
>>> a skeptic.
>>
>> That's ok. We are not in the PR business, we are not selling anything.
>
> You are selling a distribution. When Arch Linux stops giving the users
> what they want, the users will go for a different distribution. That's
> how distributions die; when something better is on the market for most
> of their users.

Arch is always give user's their options they want.

You can use initscript, even if systemd is the default just like I can
use systemd now when initscript is the default. Switch from one to
another is very easy. So use systemd as default does not means you
can not use initscript.

But if one day, most of the developer find systemd is more easier to
use maintain, they will stop maintain initscript. And it may rot, so
can not be used. When this happened, if you still think initscript is
easier to maintain, you can adopt it as a new maintainer and used them
till the world ends.

Leon

>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:47 AM.

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