Think twice before moving to systemd
On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Anthony 'Ishpeck' Tedjamulia
> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 09:23:33PM +0200, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> > So it's only needs twice the time with only on third of the ticks? Well
>> > that is awesome... Yeah to systemd!
>> systemd is much more complicated, and requires many more tricks.
> Please remember: I hate systemd.
> I have seen systemd boot faster than rough equivalents.
> Yes, the software is a huge, bloated piece of crap. But it
> is also unmistakably capable of faster boot times when
> services are started properly in parallel.
> That's assuming a few things (like that your services are
> not hugely inter-dependent or that a couple [like, maybe
> DHCP, depending on your server] just take stupidly long
> to start up).
> For all its faults, being incapabel of giving you a boot
> time advantage is _not_ one of them.
Yes, that's *in theory*, but in practice that's not what I see, and I
already investigated the culprit:
Software shouldn't rely on CONFIG_HZ, but apparently systemd is doing
something that does.
I don't find this surprising at all; systemd is a relatively new piece
of software, and a very complex one, it's bound to have tricky issues
like this one.