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 > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-29-2011, 04:47 PM
"Albert W. Hopkins"
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
> especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
> time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and
> frequent
> boots).

I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup
times with rc_parallel. The config file even says "slight speed"
improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you
might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most
people".

Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for
some people. If it works for you, great for you. If it breaks, you get
to pick up the pieces.
 
Old 11-29-2011, 05:12 PM
Pandu Poluan
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Nov 30, 2011 12:51 AM, "Albert W. Hopkins" <marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:

>

> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:

> > I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be

> > completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,

> > especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible

> > time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and

> > frequent

> > boots).

>

> I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup

> times with rc_parallel. *The config file even says "slight speed"

> improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you

> might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most

> people".

>

> Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for

> some people. *If it works for you, great for you. *If it breaks, you get

> to pick up the pieces.

>


On my server boxen, rc_parallel gives a very tangible benefit. The boot time gets cut by roughly half.


Rgds,
 
Old 11-29-2011, 05:26 PM
Paul Hartman
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Albert W. Hopkins
<marduk@letterboxes.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-29 at 18:33 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote:
>> I was just a little surprised that a system package turned out to be
>> completely broken in a scenario that I thought was quite widespread,
>> especially among the devs (as rc_parallel results in _very_ tangible
>> time savings, especially on a desktop with lots of services and
>> frequent
>> boots).
>
> I have desktops and have not seen any noticable difference in startup
> times with rc_parallel. *The config file even says "slight speed"
> improvement, then goes on with a *huge* caveat as if to say "yeah, you
> might see a little difference, but it's probably not worth it for most
> people".
>
> Basically I take that to mean, it *may* speed things up slightly for
> some people. *If it works for you, great for you. *If it breaks, you get
> to pick up the pieces.

I enabled it for a while, ran into a problem once which left my system
unbootable, chrooted from a livecd and disabled it, and never thought
about enabling it again. I usually count my yearly reboots on one
hand, so a few seconds saved to me are not worth my potential minutes
or hours spent fixing it if it goes wrong, in my opinion. For a dev
box or laptop that is booted frequently, that's a different story.
Just not my story.
 
Old 11-29-2011, 10:24 PM
"Walter Dnes"
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 08:28:42PM +0100, Andrea Conti wrote

> It had a "little" problem in resolving the dependencies of a newly
> introduced boot service that created a cycle and caused the boot process
> to hang (almost) forever with rc_parallel=YES.
>
> With 100% repeatability, mind you, which does raise same questions on
> the amount of testing done before release. Yes, it's ~arch and
> rc_parallel is explicitly marked "experimental", but it's not expected
> to be completely and consistently broken, either.
>
> If that sounds like I'm ranting, it's because I just spent about an hour
> getting three machines affected by this problem back into working state.

waltdnes@d531 ~ $ head /etc/rc.conf
# Global OpenRC configuration settings

# Set to "YES" if you want the rc system to try and start services
# in parallel for a slight speed improvement. When running in parallel we
# prefix the service output with its name as the output will get
# jumbled up.
# WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock
# the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply
# patches that fix it without breaking other things!
#rc_parallel="NO"

This alone would is enough to deter me from running it. The potential
problems aren't worth it for a few seconds faster bootup. It appears
that even the developers don't dare to run it on their machines... nuff
said.

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
 
Old 11-29-2011, 10:28 PM
"Walter Dnes"
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 06:15:14PM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote
> On 11/28/2011 02:29 PM, Albert W. Hopkins wrote:
>
> > Sorry to add more to the whining but...
> >
> > Yes, you are in the testing tree. Yes, as a member of testing, *you*
> > expect things will occasionally break, and it is *your* job to test
> > things, break them, and report bugs.
>
> Generally true, but not when something is obviously broken. That means
> not even its upstream dev bothered to test it.

There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible
combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option.

> ~arch is for "we think this works, but please give it a go in case there
> are problems". It's *not* for "we have no idea if this works because we
> didn't even try it once".

waltdnes@d531 ~ $ head /etc/rc.conf
# Global OpenRC configuration settings

# Set to "YES" if you want the rc system to try and start services
# in parallel for a slight speed improvement. When running in parallel we
# prefix the service output with its name as the output will get
# jumbled up.
# WARNING: whilst we have improved parallel, it can still potentially lock
# the boot process. Don't file bugs about this unless you can supply
# patches that fix it without breaking other things!
#rc_parallel="NO"

The developers tried it, and it worked on *THEIR SYSTEMS*. It appears
that even the developers don't dare run rc_parallel on their machines...
nuff said.

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
 
Old 11-29-2011, 10:33 PM
"Walter Dnes"
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 08:28:13PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote

> I do that a lot at work too. Some days I can tell you I found and
> dealt with more than one issue or bug but can't recall afterwards what
> it was.
>
> I'm still undecided if this is a good thing, a bad thing, or neither

They say that memory is the second thing to go... I forget what the
first is.

--
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
 
Old 11-30-2011, 03:17 AM
Peter Humphrey
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Tuesday 29 November 2011 23:28:48 Walter Dnes wrote:




> There aren't enough developers on the planet to test every possible

> combination of testing ebuild, and non-recommended rc.conf option.




Not only that, but once random timing is introduced, as in any system with a hardware clock interrupt, it becomes impossible in principle to cover all cases, so testing is always imperfect. That was the death-knell of mathematical proof of correctness in the 80s; it only ever applied to a small subset of real computer systems.




--

Rgds

Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
 
Old 12-11-2011, 09:41 AM
Andrea Conti
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On 27/11/11 16.36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone? Not even masked, but completely
> gone from portage.

FYI, sys-apps/openrc-0.9.7 is out.

Apparently, the solution to the rc_parallel issues was to remove every
mention of rc_parallel from the default /etc/rc.conf

Brilliant.

andrea
 
Old 12-11-2011, 05:10 PM
James Broadhead
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On 11 December 2011 10:41, Andrea Conti <alyf@alyf.net> wrote:
> On 27/11/11 16.36, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> sys-apps/openrc-0.9.6 is just... gone? *Not even masked, but completely
>> gone from portage.
>
> FYI, sys-apps/openrc-0.9.7 is out.
>
> Apparently, the solution to the rc_parallel issues was to remove every
> mention of rc_parallel from the default /etc/rc.conf
>
> Brilliant.

I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
Wow, what a cynical move.

Perhaps someone could do some performance testing on rc_parallel to
find out if it's worth fighting for as a feature.
 
Old 12-11-2011, 08:42 PM
Michael Orlitzky
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On 12/11/2011 01:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:


I didn't take this email at face value when I read it earlier, but I
just merged my openrc-0.9.7 config file.
Wow, what a cynical move.


It's not cynical. If you put a cool-sounding option in there with a
comment that says "this will delete all of your documents," some idiot
(i.e. me) is probably going to enable it.


Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless
you're looking for fun ways to break stuff.




Perhaps someone could do some performance testing on rc_parallel to
find out if it's worth fighting for as a feature.



The directive still exists, it's just been removed from the default rc.conf.

This prevents people from thinking "well, parallel is better than not
parallel, so I'm gonna enable it." I should know, most of my machines
still have it enabled and that was the extent of the research I did.
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:28 AM.

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