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 12-11-2011, 09:48 PM
James Broadhead
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On 11 December 2011 21:42, Michael Orlitzky <michael@orlitzky.com> wrote:
> 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.

It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC
a year+(?) ago.

"We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a
cynical response.


>> 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.

Parallel _is_ better than Not Parallel - at least in general.

I was proposing some concrete testing rather than data-less
complaining, or allowing it to be brushed under the rug
 
Old 12-11-2011, 09:57 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:48:11 +0000, James Broadhead wrote:

> > Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless
> > you're looking for fun ways to break stuff.
>
> It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC
> a year+(?) ago.

You are not a representative sample.

> "We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a
> cynical response.

Maybe, but those are your words. How about "it is known to be buggy and
no one has the time or inclination to maintain it..."

The fact that such a glaring bug slipped through on the 0.9.6 release
indicates that this is likely to be the case.


--
Neil Bothwick

Don't let your mind wander, it's too little to be let out alone.
 
Old 12-11-2011, 11:29 PM
Pandu Poluan
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Dec 12, 2011 6:00 AM, "Neil Bothwick" <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

>

> On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 22:48:11 +0000, James Broadhead wrote:

>

> > > Parallel doesn't work correctly, and it shouldn't be enabled unless

> > > you're looking for fun ways to break stuff.

> >

> > It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to OpenRC

> > a year+(?) ago.

>

> You are not a representative sample.

>


worksforme


In production servers, even. Virtualized on top of XenServer. All of them last updated last week.


> > "We broke it, so let's just remove the comments about it" _is_ a

> > cynical response.

>

> Maybe, but those are your words. How about "it is known to be buggy and

> no one has the time or inclination to maintain it..."

>

> The fact that such a glaring bug slipped through on the 0.9.6 release

> indicates that this is likely to be the case.

>


Too bad.


I much prefer OpenRC to systemd our upstart.


Rgds,
 
Old 12-12-2011, 07:43 AM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:29:16 +0700
Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

> > > It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to
> > > OpenRC a year+(?) ago.
> >
> > You are not a representative sample.
> >
>
> worksforme
>
> In production servers, even. Virtualized on top of XenServer. All of
> them last updated last week.
>

Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
machines.

I don't have a current desktop Gentoo system, those necessarily have
more complex start-up routines. Perhaps that's where most of the
problems are to found?

--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
 
Old 12-12-2011, 09:23 PM
Florian Philipp
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

Am 12.12.2011 09:43, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 07:29:16 +0700
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
>>>> It's worked for me ever since I switched all of my machines to
>>>> OpenRC a year+(?) ago.
>>>
>>> You are not a representative sample.
>>>
>>
>> worksforme
>>
>> In production servers, even. Virtualized on top of XenServer. All of
>> them last updated last week.
>>
>
> Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
> There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
> machines.
>

Don't tell me you reboot your servers so often that it is necessary to
tune the boot process for every last second. And please tell me you make
the time slots for scheduled reboots large enough for trouble shooting,
thereby not requiring every last second, either.

> I don't have a current desktop Gentoo system, those necessarily have
> more complex start-up routines. Perhaps that's where most of the
> problems are to found?
>

Guess so. Besides, there is a new init script format in the pipe, for
example mentioned here: [1] It will also make use of cgroups [2]. IMHO
loosing a few seconds of boot time is an acceptable price for better CPU
and IO scheduling.

If these "new style" scripts are written declarative, that means less
shell scripting and probably better performance even under sequential
execution. And as I've learned often and hard: You don't parallelize
until you have properly optimized your sequential execution, not the
other way around.

WTF do you need fast boot processes, anyway?! If you care about this,
you hibernate or suspend. Daily shutdown/bootup sounds like something
you'd do on a diskless client, a pre-ACPI system or some flakey
hardware. I hardly see a boot screen once per month. My laptop currently
has an uptime of 15 days, my workstation three months. You probably
waste more time repopulating your page cache after starting your desktop
environment than you do with init scripts.

[1] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2011/10/22/updating-init-scripts
[2] http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2011/11/28/the-infamous-run-migration

Regards,
Florian Philipp
 
Old 12-12-2011, 10:25 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:16 +0100
Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:

> > Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
> > There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
> > machines.
> >
>
> Don't tell me you reboot your servers so often that it is necessary to
> tune the boot process for every last second. And please tell me you
> make the time slots for scheduled reboots large enough for trouble
> shooting, thereby not requiring every last second, either.

I think you misunderstand me. I basically said:

"Parallel init out the box? Works for me."

I said nothing else. Especially not that I test it often, that I need
it, that I know exactly what I'm going to do with the 3 seconds I save
or anything else other than one single data point in the discussion
about problematic parallel init - that it works for me with simple
setups.


--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com
 
Old 12-13-2011, 12:15 PM
Florian Philipp
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

Am 13.12.2011 00:25, schrieb Alan McKinnon:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:23:16 +0100
> Florian Philipp <lists@binarywings.net> wrote:
>
>>> Same here. All my server VMs work just fine with parallel enabled.
>>> There's nothing complex in them, they tend to be single-service
>>> machines.
>>>
>>
>> Don't tell me you reboot your servers so often that it is necessary to
>> tune the boot process for every last second. And please tell me you
>> make the time slots for scheduled reboots large enough for trouble
>> shooting, thereby not requiring every last second, either.
>
> I think you misunderstand me. I basically said:
>
> "Parallel init out the box? Works for me."
>
> I said nothing else. Especially not that I test it often, that I need
> it, that I know exactly what I'm going to do with the 3 seconds I save
> or anything else other than one single data point in the discussion
> about problematic parallel init - that it works for me with simple
> setups.
>
>

Yeah, and this was not meant as an attack specifically to you. Sorry if
it sounded somewhat harsh. The issue (as stated by James) is: Is it
worth putting in effort to keep this feature? My answer is: Probably
not, for the given reasons.

Regards,
Florian Philipp
 
Old 12-14-2011, 12:28 PM
Mike Edenfield
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

On 12/11/2011 1:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:

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.


Its only cynical in that it reflects a basic failing of
human psychology, namely, "thst warning doesn't apply to me"
syndrome.


I imagine their thought process went something like this:

"We exposed this experimental feature that's hard to get
right and only moderately useful, with explicit instructions
not to complain if it doesn't work unless you are personally
going to put in the time and effort to fix it."


"People blithely ignored our warning, enabled it, then
complained loudly when it did not work."


"Since no one bothers to read the warning in rc.conf about
this feature, and we have neither the time, manpower, nor
overwhelming need to make it work, we'll just stop
mentioning it."


"HOPEFULLY anyone smart enough to find and re-enable a
hidden, explicitly unsupported feature will be smart enough
not to complain when it doesn't work."


--Mike
 
Old 12-14-2011, 05:59 PM
Dale
 
Default What happened to OpenRC 0.9.6?

Mike Edenfield wrote:

On 12/11/2011 1:10 PM, James Broadhead wrote:

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.


Its only cynical in that it reflects a basic failing of human
psychology, namely, "thst warning doesn't apply to me" syndrome.


I imagine their thought process went something like this:

"We exposed this experimental feature that's hard to get right and
only moderately useful, with explicit instructions not to complain if
it doesn't work unless you are personally going to put in the time and
effort to fix it."


"People blithely ignored our warning, enabled it, then complained
loudly when it did not work."


"Since no one bothers to read the warning in rc.conf about this
feature, and we have neither the time, manpower, nor overwhelming need
to make it work, we'll just stop mentioning it."


"HOPEFULLY anyone smart enough to find and re-enable a hidden,
explicitly unsupported feature will be smart enough not to complain
when it doesn't work."


--Mike





Sounds like good reasoning too. lol

Dale

:-) :-)

--
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Miss the compile output? Hint:
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:44 AM.

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