Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 20 Goes For No Default Sendmail, Syslog

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Honton View Post
    Faster boot.
    Waiting few more seconds once every few month is a huge gain.. not.
    Reading corrupted binary log would be a really cool experience too.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Stellarwind View Post
      Waiting few more seconds once every few month is a huge gain.. not. Reading corrupted binary log would be a really cool experience too.
      There are enterprise customers who depend on a fast boot inorder to create virtual instances on demand. More than a few seconds is an expensive thing for them. Also, binary logs have existed in Unix for a long long time. C.f utmp. Large amount of configuration is stored in binary databases often as well. Ex: LDAP

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Honton View Post
        Oh so you prefer slower boot/shutdown AND a less verbose, unindexed log -in corrupted plain text ofc. How about I throw in a pair of MC Hammer pants? you seem to prefer the old shitty days.
        I refer BSD style SysV init, very easy to adapt and optimize. Why in your world old means shitty is beyond my understanding

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Stellarwind View Post
          Waiting few more seconds once every few month is a huge gain.. not.
          Reading corrupted binary log would be a really cool experience too.
          Systemd has far more features and advantages than just 'faster boot'.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
            Systemd journal is crap. Storing logs in binary format means breaking UNIX principles and making sysadmin's job harder. RedHat used to have a clue but it seems they've completely lost touch with reality by now. Much like Canonical.
            Amen! Thank g-d there are a few distros staying way from the SystemD crapfest.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
              Amen! Thank g-d there are a few distros staying way from the SystemD crapfest.
              Sysv isn't? In a matter of times, they will end up using systemd or remain irrelevent. If SUN, Windows, Apple have their own init, why not a Linux distribution to cover a common ground to achieve better performance and efficiency.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                Sysv isn't? In a matter of times, they will end up using systemd or remain irrelevent.
                If a distro is forced to use a specific software or they will become irrelevant then Linux will become irrelevant, since it will loose one of its major advantages.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                  Sysv isn't? In a matter of times, they will end up using systemd or remain irrelevent. If SUN, Windows, Apple have their own init, why not a Linux distribution to cover a common ground to achieve better performance and efficiency.
                  yes, it isn't
                  init currently uses 100k ram (64bit, 32bit probably less)
                  syslogd uses 360k
                  klogd uses 280k
                  ntpd 700k
                  acpid 124k
                  dbus-deamon 1400k
                  crond 452k
                  atd 132k

                  all of them together have used ~5 sec of cpu time (comp on for 14 hours)
                  out of that 2 sec ntpd and 1.63 sec dbus (dbus was made for gnome and kde things, dont know how many non-that programs actually use it)

                  and i can turn them on/off or enable/disable with one simple command, like systemd can too

                  better performance and efficiency is not the goal of systemd, integration is


                  what i'm trying to say:
                  have a healthy argument, dont just spread FUD (like Lennart does)
                  Last edited by gens; 09-16-2013, 04:32 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by gens View Post
                    yes, it isn't
                    init currently uses 100k ram (64bit, 32bit probably less)
                    syslogd uses 360k
                    klogd uses 280k
                    ntpd 700k
                    acpid 124k
                    dbus-deamon 1400k
                    crond 452k
                    atd 132k

                    all of them together have used ~5 sec of cpu time (comp on for 14 hours)
                    out of that 2 sec ntpd and 1.63 sec dbus (dbus was made for gnome and kde things, dont know how many non-that programs actually use it)

                    and i can turn them on/off or enable/disable with one simple command, like systemd can too

                    better performance and efficiency is not the goal of systemd, integration is


                    what i'm trying to say:
                    have a healthy argument, dont just spread FUD (like Lennart does)

                    First, why don't you go to lennart's blog and tell him what he is missing.
                    Second, I would argue the motivating factor behind systemd was the inability of the various init systems to reliably track processes in terms of resources, dependencies, and forking/exec'ing. That was the reason, as I understand it, behind the very early decision to use cgroups in systemd.
                    Third, the barrier for new sysadmins is much lower when learning systemd practices than sysv + sysconfig + syslog + whateverelse.
                    Fourth, from what I've heard of the systemd testing, sysadmins really like it. It is well documented, and consistent.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by liam View Post
                      Third, the barrier for new sysadmins is much lower when learning systemd practices than sysv + sysconfig + syslog + whateverelse.
                      Fourth, from what I've heard of the systemd testing, sysadmins really like it. It is well documented, and consistent.
                      barrier to init is shell scripting
                      cgroups are well documented
                      shell scripting language is well documented
                      sysadmins should have a choice, not an ultimatum

                      also binary logs do not make things easier, id think (am no admin)

                      as i said in another thread;
                      this documentation starts by talking bad about the former system, in parts with semi lies - lies
                      i also said i dont wanna fight on what is "better", as it depends on goals

                      with udev being integrated into systemd there is less choice
                      and with linux being about choice.. wait what


                      what bothers me, and why i write here is "its 30 years old so OMFG IT SUX"
                      thats not a good view on anything
                      if you look you will find no valid reason for saying systemd is better then init+couple daemons
                      (faster boot is also not a reason as it can be done in shell too)

                      think about it
                      its 30 years old and there were many smart people looking over it, and none seen a problem
                      why is that ?
                      what is that problem ?


                      personally;
                      not using systemd only limits me from using gnome, that i dont use

                      even more personally;
                      i would tell him
                      but i dont care about him, i care about the knowledge and mentality of advanced computer users


                      TO REPEAT; THERE'S (ALMOST) NOTHING WRONG WITH SYSTEMD, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED UPON ANYBODY
                      good thing it cant be

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by gens View Post
                        barrier to init is shell scripting
                        cgroups are well documented
                        shell scripting language is well documented
                        sysadmins should have a choice, not an ultimatum

                        also binary logs do not make things easier, id think (am no admin)

                        as i said in another thread;
                        this documentation starts by talking bad about the former system, in parts with semi lies - lies
                        i also said i dont wanna fight on what is "better", as it depends on goals

                        with udev being integrated into systemd there is less choice
                        and with linux being about choice.. wait what


                        what bothers me, and why i write here is "its 30 years old so OMFG IT SUX"
                        thats not a good view on anything
                        if you look you will find no valid reason for saying systemd is better then init+couple daemons
                        (faster boot is also not a reason as it can be done in shell too)

                        think about it
                        its 30 years old and there were many smart people looking over it, and none seen a problem
                        why is that ?
                        what is that problem ?


                        personally;
                        not using systemd only limits me from using gnome, that i dont use

                        even more personally;
                        i would tell him
                        but i dont care about him, i care about the knowledge and mentality of advanced computer users


                        TO REPEAT; THERE'S (ALMOST) NOTHING WRONG WITH SYSTEMD, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED UPON ANYBODY
                        good thing it cant be
                        You seem like you're unwilling to be swayed (you didn't address my points, you just spoke of how things should be) so I don't see the point in continuning.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                          If a distro is forced to use a specific software or they will become irrelevant then Linux will become irrelevant, since it will loose one of its major advantages.
                          In this case, that specific software is systemd designed to take further advantage of Linux kernel and adopted by an increasing amount of major distributions meaning its benefits outweighs its shortcoming.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                            In this case, that specific software is systemd designed to take further advantage of Linux kernel and adopted by an increasing amount of major distributions meaning its benefits outweighs its shortcoming.
                            I take solace in the fact that it will be a cold day in hell before some distros like Gentoo, Slackware, Puppy Linux, any of the BSDs, Solaris, Minix and Ubuntu will adopt systemd.
                            Competition is always a good thing.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                              In this case, that specific software is systemd designed to take further advantage of Linux kernel and adopted by an increasing amount of major distributions meaning its benefits outweighs its shortcoming for those distributions, but not for those that refuse to adopt it, obviously..
                              Fixed that for you. It does not matter at all if some distributions, even if it are major ones, adopt systemd. That does not mean at all that every distribution has to adopt it.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                                Fixed that for you. It does not matter at all if some distributions, even if it are major ones, adopt systemd. That does not mean at all that every distribution has to adopt it.
                                Yes but it does mean that distributions not adopting it should cope with the changes upstream one way or the other and they are.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X