Systemd In Ten Years Has Redefined The Linux Landscape

[Farmer]

Welcome novice stop blaming systemd for you problems. Be thankful for it.

This totally reads like a total novice screwup.
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/8.0...sk-issues.html
One its not recommend to have mariadb or mysql on nfs share.

I see this a lot lets blame systemd instead of having to learn how todo stuff properly.

PS you can alter system with systemd that the http server does not come up unless the database server is started as well to prevent those accessing site getting access to a webpage in broken state due to missing database. This can be highly important at times with login databases.

Find in my post where I stated that mariadb is on an NFS share. Give it a shot. It isn't. What I made clear was that neither mariadb nor nfs started upon boot. At no point did I state that mariadb files were on an NFS share. Mariadb is used behind a web server whereas I use NFS to share files between computers. Different purposes entirely and not intermixed.

systemctl enable is the recommended command to enable this. It doesn't work. That's broken out of the box. Get over it. If it wasn't broken out of the box httpd wouldn't start either but that one does. That they all run when manually started makes clear they all work.

On new hardware the only two issues I encountered were a driver not loading for one of the RAID cards and systemd not starting two services.

The RAID card issue was due to lack of the PCI ID in the database. Filed a bug, with fix, that they baked a new kernel for me to test. The fixed that. Until then I manually loaded it.

Clearly I'm no novice.

20 years ago when loading a new machine from scratch, as I did for this one, almost everything needed fixing. It typically took a good half hour just to get the fonts reasonable.

Today, out of the box, only one of the software packages misbehaved. Over 1,000 packages and everything worked peachy.

Except for systemd.

The one thing systemd was intended to do was deal with services. It cannot even do that right. Even MS-DOS managed that.

This is typically the point where fanbois are full of excuses and information technology advice. Missing the point entirely. Just like every other package on the machine it should work as claimed by default. It didn't. That's brittle software.

How much effort it takes to fix it is irrelevant. It didn't work correctly on a clean bog simple installation. Every other package did. Well, excepting the PCI ID for the obscure RAID card thing anyway.

[Paul Frederick]

Paul Frederick
Tell the name of the Desktop Environment you use. You started the claim related to systemd so the burden of proof is on you.

This isn't a court of law numb nuts. I don't use that DE anymore because it didn't work. SystemD made me fall back to how I ran Linux 20 years ago. How's that for progress?

[k1e0x]

This isn't a court of law numb nuts. I don't use that DE anymore because it didn't work. SystemD made me fall back to how I ran Linux 20 years ago. How's that for progress?

Window Maker? No shame there..

[finalzone]

This isn't a court of law numb nuts. I don't use that DE anymore because it didn't work. SystemD made me fall back to how I ran Linux 20 years ago. How's that for progress?

Still asking you to provide the scenario with the name of the desktop environment, the name of the distribution running your system and reproduce the problem seemly related to systemd so viewers can see what is exactly going on. Additionally, a link to a bug report will help. Those are very simple requests. Can you do that?
The correct spelling is systemd by the way.

[Paul Frederick]

Window Maker? No shame there..

Window Maker is a Window Manager not a Desktop Environment.

[Paul Frederick]

Still asking you to provide the scenario with the name of the desktop environment, the name of the distribution running your system and reproduce the problem seemly related to systemd so viewers can see what is exactly going on. Additionally, a link to a bug report will help. Those are very simple requests. Can you do that?
The correct spelling is systemd by the way.

I submitted a bug report but the project deleted everything before 2018. It was totally related to SystemD too. I can do plenty. The question remains will I? The answer to that is no. Now have a Merry Christmas.

[oiaohm]

Find in my post where I stated that mariadb is on an NFS share. Give it a shot. It isn't. What I made clear was that neither mariadb nor nfs started upon boot. At no point did I state that mariadb files were on an NFS share. Mariadb is used behind a web server whereas I use NFS to share files between computers. Different purposes entirely and not intermixed.

This kind of failure pattern of mariadb being linked to NFS shares is in fact common if you started with a cloud configured item.

systemctl enable is the recommended command to enable this. It doesn't work. That's broken out of the box. Get over it..

This is still novice answer. You have shown nothing that the command systemctl enable does not in fact work.

Enable one or more units or unit instances. This will create a set of symlinks, as encoded in the "[Install]" sections of the indicated unit files. After the symlinks have been created, the system manager configuration is reloaded (in a way equivalent to daemon-reload), in order to ensure the changes are taken into account immediately. Note that this does not have the effect of also starting any of the units being enabled. If this is desired, combine this command with the --now switch, or invoke start with appropriate arguments later. Note that in case of unit instance enablement (i.e. enablement of units of the form [email protected]), symlinks named the same as instances are created in the unit configuration directory, however they point to the single template unit file they are instantiated from.

This is from the systemctl man page. Where does it say the service will absolutely start by doing systemctl enable. Answer it does not. Enabled services will be tried on boot and if they fail the they will stay down. You need to check status with "systemctl status service" to find out why. With sysvinit you had to dig though logs.

MSDOS when this happen pure ass no status or logs to work out what you had done wrong sometimes you would just keep on swapping stuff around until it worked with MSDOS.

If it wasn't broken out of the box httpd wouldn't start either but that one does. That they all run when manually started makes clear they all work.

Out box on most distributions httpd will not be linked by service unit files to databases starting. The fact httpd starts tells me the enable command worked correctly. You have not modified the unit files to make httpd not start until you have database up.
https://www.freedesktop.org/software...temd.unit.html

Basically you will be wanting one of "wants=","requires=" or "Requisite=" and possible a "after=" value set.

Clearly I'm no novice.

No clearly novice. You don't understand what the command means. And you are not doing diagnostics.

Except for systemd. The one thing systemd was intended to do was deal with services. It cannot even do that right. Even MS-DOS managed that.

There is a very good old saying. Garbage in, Garbage out. Systemd is only as good as it configuration. If it configured wrong it will still service manage. Ok it may decide try to start something see error and stop that service fully. This is still proper service management like it or not. It will have recorded a status of what went wrong if you are too much of a idiot to read that its not my problem its yours.

You are dealing with a old school dos user who did complex autoexec.bat and config.sys. I can tell you if you start things in the wrong order on MSDOS TSR programs magically did not start either. This was kind important so networking and sound worked with dos applications. So the problem you just happens under MSDOS as well.

Really at this point you are sounded like a person who has put the old harddrive command park heads in autoexec.bat and wondering why they cannot access their computer and blaming MSDOS. Sorry referring to MSDOS tells me you were only a novice with that and you thought you were an expert when you were not.

How much effort it takes to fix it is irrelevant. It didn't work correctly on a clean bog simple installation.

Webserver + a database is not a bog simple solution to setup right. Because database used with webserver could be postgresql, mysql, mariadb..... and the list goes on. Webserver + database means you have to manually alter the init system so it does the right things and its not possible for the distribution to set this out the box right. Yes just because you install a database does not mean the webserver will be using it either. This was in fact true back with sysvinit as well this is not a new problem. Systemd has a different of doing this compared to old sysvinit.

Distributions are meant to provide default configurations to systemd that makes general stuff simple. Maybe you should name the distribution instead of just blaming systemd and start looking at their maintainers.

[finalzone]

I submitted a bug report but the project deleted everything before 2018. It was totally related to SystemD too. I can do plenty. The question remains will I? The answer to that is no. Now have a Merry Christmas.

What was the title of that bug report and the name of the project in question? Those are simple request easy to answer. You claimed the issue was related to systemd so would you mind to link the issue inside the systemd bug report to verify your claim?

[oiaohm]

Yes. I agree with a lot of that. I think Linux cgroups and namespace is part of the problem. That needs to be re-engineered honestly a lot more like Solaris Zones (something that is the model for Redox) and true process isolation and containerization.

One of the funny parts here cgroups/namespace in Linux kernel starts from the Solaris Zones as attempt to simply and reduce the overhead cost. This has been fairly successful with some major goof ups. Not all times do you need full process isolation and containerisation sometimes this is in fact hindrance memory usage and performance.

Determining if a pid has gone down, needs to go down, or has been reused is a much larger topic and a philosophical one.

There is a practical one as well when it comes to resource usage and making sure you don't have risk of pointer overflow. Or simply avoid having PID value at all plan 9 os did this yes first OS that truly did everything as a file.

I find I'm often of the opinion that if a process dies it should not be restarted, it should core dump and be investigated to find out why it went down and fixed as it isn't operating as intended and therefore needs a fix.

This is generally what systemd does. Exactly what user Farmer is running into.

Restarting it is very "windows sysadmin esque" and that bothers me a lot that Linux seems to think this is ok.

Auto restarting services predates Windows and first appears on different Unix systems. Lot of people link this to windows. You had people running Linux back in 2001 using deamontools that would also auto restart services. Before that you had cron jobs from the Unix world ported world like every 15 mins perform a status on a service if service not up restart it. All of these could go horrible wrong.

This is the problem restarting services is in fact very Unix sysadmin. So we need to provide way todo it well.

There are some things where this behaviour is ok, necessary and good.. but those are edge cases and should not be the norm.. In my opinion.

Edge cases include remote management like you ssh you don't want that dead. Third party print drivers that you cannot fix as well. So auto restarting services is something we kind of need and that it works well. Not have all the past where it would go horrible wrong and not restart when it is need to because a fragment of the service is left running.

I think the moral of this story is OS development and improvement still has a long way to come.

I agree OS development still has a long way to come. Problem is there is no exact black and white answer.
Draw a triangle(fairly huge by the way most likely read this all before drawing). At each of the three corners put the following words.
1) Fast
2) Secure
3) Stable

Now in the dead centre of triangle put a point with the word garbage. Draw 3 lines to the 3 points of the triangle with value starting at the centre being 0 and 100 at the corners. You now get 3 tokens. You have 200 point to spend to move those 3 tokens from the centre to the out side. That 0 to 100 is percentage of perfection.

Welcome to the game of compromises. I have done as a game before instead of 100 used 0 to 6 with max of 12 point assignable. Very warped game of snakes and

The outer triangle you draw would be ideal perfection that is totally not achievable. Playing with 200 points is basically the real world.

You are now looking at a picture OS choices when making an OS. The closer you get to fast. The less secure and stable you are. The closer stable the less secure and fast you are. Closer to secure the less stable and fast you are.

Lot of people would think stable would get better inline with secure. Remember you have run all you tests to prove something is stable now you have to apply a security patch so you have to run all those test again. See treadmill.

Also some security event might happen as gr-security was known for doing was to trigger a kernel panic as that was the most secure thing todo this was not what you want something stable todo instead you want it to safely shutdown instead.

Game of compromises I have done as a board game before instead of 0-100 used 0 to 6 with max of 12 point assignable. Very warped game.

Speed of movement capped by the fast you set so if fast is set to . So you absolutely cannot win if you max out stable and secure you are not moving..

The board is a simple chess board moving like a snakes and ladders board. Black is security issue, White is a stability issue. The dice roll that moves you to a square is greater than you set security on a black square or set stability on white square back to start you are. At start point off board you can change your 3 values of fast, stable and secure of course not breaking the 12 point limit. For such simple rules its insanely hard game to get to end. Yes this is a game when rolling a 6 is fairly much screwed.

[k1e0x]

One of the funny parts here cgroups/namespace in Linux kernel starts from the Solaris Zones as attempt to simply and reduce the overhead cost. This has been fairly successful with some major goof ups. Not all times do you need full process isolation and containerisation sometimes this is in fact hindrance memory usage and performance.

Really? Would you like to be specific?

What case exists where jails or zones do not provide exactly the same performance values as the host at the same time isolating the process? The implementations I know are not perfect.. but they are better than the upstack illusion of a container Linux provides. Linux needs to start from scratch and implement this properly.