Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, July 15, 2014 11:01, Les Mikesell wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Keith Keller kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote: 1. See the systemd myths web page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html In the interest of full disclosure, that page is written by one of the primary authors of systemd, so we shouldn't expect an unbiased opinion. (Not saying it's wrong, only that it's important to understand the perspective an author might have.) One thing that bothers me very much when reading that is the several mentions of how you don't need to learn shell syntax as though that is an advantage or as if the author didn't already know and use it already. As if he didn't understand that _every command you type at the command line_ is shell syntax. Or as if he thinks learning a bunch of special-case language quirks is somehow better than one that you can use in many other situations. When you get something that fundamental wrong it is hard to take the rest seriously. Without gainsaying any of the foregoing, let me put the alternative case. In my opinion, the era of dedicated sys-admins is passing if not already finished. A good friend of mine, sadly now deceased, began his career working for RCA adjusting colour television sets in the owner's homes. The neighbourhood garage with two or three teen-aged grease-monkeys and owner-mechanic are gone. So too are chauffeur-mechanics for car owners, elevator operators in buildings, attendants at public toilets (at least in North America), telephone-operators (mainly), and telephone booths (mostly). It is called the advance of the ages. All technology must, if it is to become truly useful, disappear from conscious consideration when operated. Consider how little user maintenance is even possible with a modern automobile, how pervasive the idea of instant world-wide voice and data communication is and the absurd triviality of the operating the technology necessary to accomplish this is (from the end user's perspective). How many here remember party-line telephone service? Operator assisted Station-to-Station and Person-to-Person long distance calls? Telegrams? Telex? Centrex? Analysis pads? Residual artifacts of all these things are still to be found but their function has been subsumed and submerged by technology and the skills necessary to operate them are obsolete. All successful automation is going down the same path. The *nixes have not won the OS wars but they are, I believe, a significant part of the medium term future of automation. However, to become truly useful to the widest possible audience the arcane user interface commonly encountered in the myriad of disjointed *nix system utilities has to be radically simplified to the point of triviality. A shell is, at its root, a programming language. A peculiar form of virtual machine if you will. The vast majority of computer users are not programmers and will never become so. What this means is that the shell, of whatever ilk, must be submerged to the view of most users if *nix is to thrive. For the cognoscenti this will ever be a point of discomfort for it puts into question the value of their hard won skills. Nonetheless, things like systemd, gnome3, and no-doubt dumber and more awful things to come are, in my opinion, inevitable. Computing is just too valuable a resource to be left solely in the hands of a self-selected elite whose entrance requirement is mastery of a dozen subtly different ways of telling computer systems to do essentially the same thing. There is a reason that things like Webmin already exist and it is not because of MS-Windows or LUsers. It is because the native administrative interface to the standard *nix system is a nightmare of complexity, inconsistency and sheer bloody-mindedness. At least, that is how I see it. I am not comfortable with change but I have long ago given up trying to resist it. If systemd presents a common DSL for service management dependencies __AND__ it works then bring it on. I had to write upstart Stanzas for IAXModem on C6. I suppose it will not be any harder in its successor on C7. -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:50:18PM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: On 2014-07-15, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: I've been using systemd ever since it was introduced in Fedora, and the RHEL7 beta and CentOS7 final since it came out. I could tell you about all the positive and negative experiences I've had. I think this could be very useful, especially coming from someone who was initially reluctant (as I and clearly others are). Ok, I'll give some examples of my experiences. Warning: long post. As a systems integrator, I'm less concerned with hand-crafted, artisian init script hackery and more interested in consistency. I rarely start init scripts by running the init script manually, but rely on configuration management tools, which expect a uniform interface. I'm concerned with confining services to use the resource that are expected, and to make sure that they remain secure. Prior to the systemd's release, I had created several custom services to manage the infrastructure and to serve up the apps I supported. They were all written using RHEL and CentOS-specific syntax. I had started looking at replacing them with Upstart-specific services around the time when systemd was announced. Both Upstart and systemd have simpler configuration syntax, their own commands and better support of dependency management. When I started using and writing my own systemd units, I found them quite simple, the documentation sufficient, and the features quite useful. Finally getting proper ordering of services, being able to set mountpoints and network activation (for example) as dependencies of services, resource management, these all are huge wins for Linux systems. For example, cgroups. I had already started using cgroups in el6, and you get automatic resource management with cgroups with systemd. This is a hugely positive feature that you don't even realize is possible until you start using it. This also extends to systemd-logind, so you can set up slices for resource management of users. Possible in el6 using pam_cgroup and cgred, but must better implemented with logind, since they're automatically created and added to a cgroup. Same for services. From that perspective, now you can really think of a 'service' as a unit, contained within what you define its resources to have. You can also have containers that make it possible to even give a service its own process namespace, with Docker or systemd-nspawn. From a purely configuration management perspective, the ability to just drop simple text files into directories to set up all of these features makes me happy. For example, instead of needing to modify /etc/fstab (which I hate doing, since I try to avoid making my CfgMgmt tool edit files), I can drop an NFS mointpoint definition into a .mount unit file, which I can then refer to in a .service unit file that requires the mountpoint. Puppet, Chef and Bcfg2 (the CfgMgmt tools I've used) all support systemd, so the hard work has already been done to start using it. I was not particularly enamored with fancy SysVinit scripting, and usually prefer as simple and baseline functionality as possible, so I really see no loss switching to systemd. The fear of systemd being monolithic actually makes me chuckle, since systemd actually breaks out many of the functions of the SysVinit rc.sysinit into separate units, to be managed and modified as needed (such as TTY allocation, mounting filesystems, managing runlevels, etc.). So, the things that have bothered me so far: 1.) The order of the 'service SERVICENAME start|stop|status' options is reversed for 'systemctl start|stop|status SERVICENAME.service'. It took me a while to get used to that. You can just keep using 'service' and get similar results, though. The output of the systemctl status is pretty complex too. Also, I keep forgetting to run 'systemctl status -l SERVICENAME.service' and the long lines are chopped off until I remember to use -l. 2.) Daemons under systemd don't really need to daemonize anymore. In the past, to start up a daemon process, you'd need to fork (or double-fork) and disconnect STDIN, STDOUT and STDERR file descriptors. This was just accepted knowledge. You don't need to do that anymore in systemd service units. Heck, write to stdout or stderr, it'll be recorded in the journal. Check out the openssh-server service unit, you'll see that sshd is run with -D there. Systemd supports daemonized services, it's just not necessary anymore. 3.) Old SysVinit services that did something other than start/stop/restart/status no longer work. While this was nice for consistency, it means that porting to systemd will require alternative methods. This really bugged me at first, but from the perspective of a systems management person, I can see why it was kind of a hack, and not consistently implemented. 4.) Debugging. Why is my unit not starting when I can start it from the command line? Once I figured
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/15/2014 09:38 AM, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:50:18PM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: I think this could be very useful, especially coming from someone who was initially reluctant (as I and clearly others are). Ok, I'll give some examples of my experiences. Warning: long post. ... When I started using and writing my own systemd units, I found them quite simple, ... So, the things that have bothered me so far: ... Jonathan, thanks for the balanced treatment and for posting actual experience and not just regurgitating tired tropes. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 15 Jul 2014 14:38, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: 4.) Debugging. Why is my unit not starting when I can start it from the command line? Once I figured out journalctl it was a bit easier, and typically it was SELinux, but no longer being able to just run 'bash -x /etc/rc.d/init.d/foobar' was frustrating. sytemd disables core dumps on services by default (at least it did on Fedora, the documentation now says it's on by default. Huh. I should test that...) Jon as a heads up this isn't a systemd/el7 thing necessarily... Look at the daemon function in /etc/init.d/functions that most standard EL init scripts will be using... Core files have been disabled on things started with that by default (need to export a variable in the environment of the script usually via sysconfig) the whole of el6 ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Keith Keller kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote: 1. See the systemd myths web page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html In the interest of full disclosure, that page is written by one of the primary authors of systemd, so we shouldn't expect an unbiased opinion. (Not saying it's wrong, only that it's important to understand the perspective an author might have.) One thing that bothers me very much when reading that is the several mentions of how you don't need to learn shell syntax as though that is an advantage or as if the author didn't already know and use it already. As if he didn't understand that _every command you type at the command line_ is shell syntax. Or as if he thinks learning a bunch of special-case language quirks is somehow better than one that you can use in many other situations. When you get something that fundamental wrong it is hard to take the rest seriously. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 9:46 AM, James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com wrote: 4.) Debugging. Why is my unit not starting when I can start it from the command line? Once I figured out journalctl it was a bit easier, and typically it was SELinux, but no longer being able to just run 'bash -x /etc/rc.d/init.d/foobar' was frustrating. sytemd disables core dumps on services by default (at least it did on Fedora, the documentation now says it's on by default. Huh. I should test that...) Jon as a heads up this isn't a systemd/el7 thing necessarily... Look at the daemon function in /etc/init.d/functions that most standard EL init scripts will be using... Core files have been disabled on things started with that by default (need to export a variable in the environment of the script usually via sysconfig) the whole of el6 ... Is there a simple generic equivalent to: sh -x /etc/rc.d/init.d/program_name start to see how configurations options that are abstracted out of the main files are being picked up and expanded? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:01:34AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:50 PM, Keith Keller kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote: 1. See the systemd myths web page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html In the interest of full disclosure, that page is written by one of the primary authors of systemd, so we shouldn't expect an unbiased opinion. (Not saying it's wrong, only that it's important to understand the perspective an author might have.) One thing that bothers me very much when reading that is the several mentions of how you don't need to learn shell syntax as though that is an advantage or as if the author didn't already know and use it already. As if he didn't understand that _every command you type at the command line_ is shell syntax. Or as if he thinks learning a bunch of special-case language quirks is somehow better than one that you can use in many other situations. When you get something that fundamental wrong it is hard to take the rest seriously. You mean this paragraph? systemd certainly comes with a learning curve. Everything does. However, we like to believe that it is actually simpler to understand systemd than a Shell-based boot for most people. Surprised we say that? Well, as it turns out, Shell is not a pretty language to learn, it's syntax is arcane and complex. systemd unit files are substantially easier to understand, they do not expose a programming language, but are simple and declarative by nature. That all said, if you are experienced in shell, then yes, adopting systemd will take a bit of learning. I think the point is that systemd unit file syntax is significantly simpler than shell syntax -- can we agree on that? It also is significantly less-featureful than a shell programming language. Yes, you're going to be using shell elsewhere, but in my experience, the structure of most SysVinit scripts is nearly identical, and where it deviates is where things often get confusing to people not as familiar with shell scripting. Many of the helper functions in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions seem to exist to STOP people from writing unique shell code in their init scripts. -- Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: 1. See the systemd myths web page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html In the interest of full disclosure, that page is written by one of the primary authors of systemd, so we shouldn't expect an unbiased opinion. (Not saying it's wrong, only that it's important to understand the perspective an author might have.) One thing that bothers me very much when reading that is the several mentions of how you don't need to learn shell syntax as though that is an advantage or as if the author didn't already know and use it already. As if he didn't understand that _every command you type at the command line_ is shell syntax. Or as if he thinks learning a bunch of special-case language quirks is somehow better than one that you can use in many other situations. When you get something that fundamental wrong it is hard to take the rest seriously. You mean this paragraph? systemd certainly comes with a learning curve. Everything does. However, we like to believe that it is actually simpler to understand systemd than a Shell-based boot for most people. Surprised we say that? Well, as it turns out, Shell is not a pretty language to learn, it's syntax is arcane and complex. systemd unit files are substantially easier to understand, they do not expose a programming language, but are simple and declarative by nature. That all said, if you are experienced in shell, then yes, adopting systemd will take a bit of learning. I think the point is that systemd unit file syntax is significantly simpler than shell syntax -- can we agree on that? No. Everything you type on a command line is shell syntax. If you don't think that is an appropriate way to start programs you probably shouldn't be using a unix-like system, much less redesigning it. If you don't think the shell is the best tool, how about fixing it so it will be the best in all situations. It also is significantly less-featureful than a shell programming language. Yes, you're going to be using shell elsewhere, but in my experience, the structure of most SysVinit scripts is nearly identical, and where it deviates is where things often get confusing to people not as familiar with shell scripting. Many of the helper functions in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions seem to exist to STOP people from writing unique shell code in their init scripts. Yes, reusing common code and knowledge is a good thing. But spending a bit of time learning shell syntax will help you with pretty much everything else you'll ever do on a unix-like system, where spending that time learning a new way to make your program start at boot will just get you back to what you already could do on previous systems. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Jonathan Billings wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:50:18PM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: On 2014-07-15, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: I've been using systemd ever since it was introduced in Fedora, and the RHEL7 beta and CentOS7 final since it came out. I could tell you about all the positive and negative experiences I've had. SNIP 3.) Old SysVinit services that did something other than start/stop/restart/status no longer work. While this was nice for consistency, it means that porting to systemd will require alternative methods. This really bugged me at first, but from the perspective of a systems management person, I can see why it was kind of a hack, and not consistently implemented. snip This one does bother me. I may not want to restart a production instance of apache, when all I want it to do is reload the configuration files, so that one site changes while the others are all running happily as clams. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/15/2014 11:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: This one does bother me. I may not want to restart a production instance of apache, when all I want it to do is reload the configuration files, so that one site changes while the others are all running happily as clams. systemctl reload $unit Documented in the systemctl(1) man page. If the unit(s) you want to reload don't support that, and you want to reload more than one unit's configuration in one command, you use systemctl reload-or-restart $unit (I've wanted that one for a while, and 'service' doesn't do that, along with globbing of the name; that is 'systemctl reload-or-restart httpd*' (with proper quoting) will restart or reload all running units that match the glob; yeah, now on my load-balanced multiple-frontends plone installation I could 'systemctl reload-or-restart plone-*' and it will do the right thing, no matter how many frontend instances I have selected for running That's actually pretty cool. There are quite a few of the commands that systemctl supports that I have wanted for 'service' for a long time. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Lamar Owen wrote: On 07/15/2014 11:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: This one does bother me. I may not want to restart a production instance of apache, when all I want it to do is reload the configuration files, so that one site changes while the others are all running happily as clams. systemctl reload $unit Documented in the systemctl(1) man page. snip Which contradicts the long post from the guy I was responding to, who said it *only* did start, stop, restart mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:57:10AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Lamar Owen wrote: On 07/15/2014 11:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: This one does bother me. I may not want to restart a production instance of apache, when all I want it to do is reload the configuration files, so that one site changes while the others are all running happily as clams. systemctl reload $unit Documented in the systemctl(1) man page. snip Which contradicts the long post from the guy I was responding to, who said it *only* did start, stop, restart What I meant is that it doesn't support extra action verbs, such as 'service httpd configtest'. I didn't mean to indicate that it ONLY supported start, stop, restart and status. -- Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/15/2014 11:57 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Which contradicts the long post from the guy I was responding to, who said it *only* did start, stop, restart I figured it was a typo on his part, leaving out 'reload' like that, as condrestart is also missing, and it's part of the standard set. I took it more as, for instance, the PostgreSQL initscript's 'initdb' command, which is a unique one, is no longer directly supported as a command line option. I haven't looked at what PostgreSQL's unit under C7 does as yet if a database instance doesn't exist, but I'm sure it's already been thought through; I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. Read the man page for yourself. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:32:16AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: I think the point is that systemd unit file syntax is significantly simpler than shell syntax -- can we agree on that? No. Everything you type on a command line is shell syntax. If you don't think that is an appropriate way to start programs you probably shouldn't be using a unix-like system, much less redesigning it. If you don't think the shell is the best tool, how about fixing it so it will be the best in all situations. Yes, everything you type in a shell uses shell syntax. But systemd doesn't use a shell to start a program for a service. This has nothing to do with how programs are started from a shell, but rather how the init system is starting the program. Simplified, declaritive syntax, no need to write the entire logical sequence for handling the action verb parameter for each script (Whoops! I forgot that ;; in the case statement!). That's simpler. It also is significantly less-featureful than a shell programming language. Yes, you're going to be using shell elsewhere, but in my experience, the structure of most SysVinit scripts is nearly identical, and where it deviates is where things often get confusing to people not as familiar with shell scripting. Many of the helper functions in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions seem to exist to STOP people from writing unique shell code in their init scripts. Yes, reusing common code and knowledge is a good thing. But spending a bit of time learning shell syntax will help you with pretty much everything else you'll ever do on a unix-like system, where spending that time learning a new way to make your program start at boot will just get you back to what you already could do on previous systems. If the entirety of the Linux startup process was written in simple shell code, that might be a useful line of argument, but even in CentOS6 there was a non-shell init system (Upstart) which requires understanding of a domain-specific language, plus dozens of other various configurations, like xinetd, cron, anacron, gdm, etc which start processes on boot. Each has their quirks. Not all of them use shell syntax, and even those that did had caveats. systemd just replaces Upstart, and can potentially replace xinetd and cron as well, using the same syntax and bringing in the ability to refer to each other for startup sequence management. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't learn shell programming (and I don't believe that Mr. Poettering is either), just that systemd units flattens the learning curve for creating new unit files. -- Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
You can still run apache's configtest https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/ch-Web_Servers.html httpd Service Control With the migration away from SysV init scripts, server administrators should switch to using the apachectl and systemctl commands to control the service, in place of the service command. The following examples are specific to the httpd service. The command: service httpd graceful is replaced by apachectl graceful The command: service httpd configtest is replaced by apachectl configtest The systemd unit file for httpd has different behavior from the init script as follows: A graceful restart is used by default when the service is reloaded. A graceful stop is used by default when the service is stopped. Thanks, Richard -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Billings Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 12:01 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ? On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:57:10AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Lamar Owen wrote: On 07/15/2014 11:33 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: This one does bother me. I may not want to restart a production instance of apache, when all I want it to do is reload the configuration files, so that one site changes while the others are all running happily as clams. systemctl reload $unit Documented in the systemctl(1) man page. snip Which contradicts the long post from the guy I was responding to, who said it *only* did start, stop, restart What I meant is that it doesn't support extra action verbs, such as 'service httpd configtest'. I didn't mean to indicate that it ONLY supported start, stop, restart and status. -- Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 10:32:16 -0500 Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: It also is significantly less-featureful than a shell programming language. Yes, you're going to be using shell elsewhere, but in my experience, the structure of most SysVinit scripts is nearly identical, and where it deviates is where things often get confusing to people not as familiar with shell scripting. Many of the helper functions in /etc/rc.d/init.d/functions seem to exist to STOP people from writing unique shell code in their init scripts. Yes, reusing common code and knowledge is a good thing. But spending a bit of time learning shell syntax will help you with pretty much everything else you'll ever do on a unix-like system, where spending that time learning a new way to make your program start at boot will just get you back to what you already could do on previous systems. Les, I could re-use your logic to argue that one should never even try to learn bash, and stick to C instead. Every *real* user of UNIX-like systems should be capable of writing C code, which is used in so many more circumstances than bash. C is so much more powerful, more expressive, immensely faster, covers a broader set of use-cases, is being used in so many more circumstances than bash, is far more generic, and in the long run it's a good investment in programming skills and knowledge. Why would you ever want to start your system using some clunky shell-based interpreter like bash, (which cannot even share memory between processes in a native way), when you can simply write a short piece of C code, fork() all your services, compile it, and run? All major pieces of any UNIX-like system were traditionally written in C, so what would be the point of ever introducing a less powerful language like bash, and doing the system startup in that? And if you really insist on writing commands interactively into a command prompt, you are welcome to use tcsh, and reuse all the syntax and well-earned knowledge of C, rather than invest time to learn yet-another-obscure-scripting-language... Right? Or not? If not, you may want to reconsider your argument against systemd --- it's simple, clean, declarative, does one thing and does it well, and it doesn't pretend to be a panacea of system administration like bash does. HTH, :-) Marko ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 10:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: spending that time learning a new way to make your program start at boot will just get you back to what you already could do on previous systems. So what is the advantage of systemd? I accept we have to use it in C7, but how is systemd going to improve the usability and reliability of Centos ? -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 12:00 -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote: What I meant is that it doesn't support extra action verbs, such as 'service httpd configtest'. I didn't mean to indicate that it ONLY supported start, stop, restart and status. So, in C7, how do I do a system httpd configtest ? Am I going to lose that facility in C7? -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 11:33 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: This one does bother me. I may not want to restart a production instance of apache, when all I want it to do is reload the configuration files, so that one site changes while the others are all running happily as clams. That's easy. I just type: sv httpd reload (sv is my system-wide abbreviation for system, 'cos I'm lazy) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 7/15/2014 10:00 AM, Always Learning wrote: So what is the advantage of systemd? I accept we have to use it in C7, but how is systemd going to improve the usability and reliability of Centos ? the big thing with any of these new service managers (I'm more familiar with Solaris SMF than systemd, but I believe it does the same thing), is that it determines whether the service properly starts and tracks service dependencies.sysVinit style services could only be sequenced (start all lower numbered services before starting this one) and it had to wait for each service to start before going onto the next, while SMF and presumably systemd will start multiple services in parallel as long as they aren't dependent.also, SMF at least detects when a service fails/stops, and attempts to take corrective action per how that service is configured -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 2014-07-15, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: So, in C7, how do I do a system httpd configtest ? Am I going to lose that facility in C7? apachectl configtest (which is all the init script does anyway) --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Marko Vojinovic vvma...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, reusing common code and knowledge is a good thing. But spending a bit of time learning shell syntax will help you with pretty much everything else you'll ever do on a unix-like system, where spending that time learning a new way to make your program start at boot will just get you back to what you already could do on previous systems. Les, I could re-use your logic to argue that one should never even try to learn bash, and stick to C instead. You could, if every command typed by every user since unix v7 had been parsed with C syntax instead of shell so there would be something they could 'stick to'. But, that's not true. Every *real* user of UNIX-like systems should be capable of writing C code, which is used in so many more circumstances than bash. That might be true, but it is irrelevant. Why would you ever want to start your system using some clunky shell-based interpreter like bash, (which cannot even share memory between processes in a native way), when you can simply write a short piece of C code, fork() all your services, compile it, and run? If you think bash is 'clunky', then why even run an operating system where it is used as the native user interface?Or, if you need to change something, why not fix bash to have the close mapping to system calls that bourne shell had back in the days before sockets? And if you really insist on writing commands interactively into a command prompt, you are welcome to use tcsh, and reuse all the syntax and well-earned knowledge of C, rather than invest time to learn yet-another-obscure-scripting-language... Right? Or not? Well, Bill Joy thought so. I wouldn't argue with him about it for his own use, but for everyone else it is just another incompatible waste of human time. If not, you may want to reconsider your argument against systemd --- it's simple, clean, declarative, does one thing and does it well, and it doesn't pretend to be a panacea of system administration like bash does. I'm sure it can work - and will. But I'm equally sure that in my lifetime the cheap computer time it might save for me in infrequent server reboots will never be a win over the expensive human time for the staff training and new documentation that will be needed to deal with it and the differences in the different systems that will be running concurrently for a long time. The one place it 'seems' like it should be useful would be on a laptop if it handles sleep mode gracefully, but on the laptop where I've been testing RHEL7 beta it seems purely random whether it will wake from sleep and continue or if it will have logged me out. And I don't have a clue how to debug it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 2014-07-15, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: Ok, I'll give some examples of my experiences. Warning: long post. Long, but really helpful. Thank you so much for putting your time in! So, the things that have bothered me so far: 1.) The order of the 'service SERVICENAME start|stop|status' options is reversed for 'systemctl start|stop|status SERVICENAME.service' Yes, I've seen this too with initctl. Grr! But that's mostly cosmetic, and just something to get used to (as you have). 2.) Daemons under systemd don't really need to daemonize anymore. In the past, to start up a daemon process, you'd need to fork (or double-fork) and disconnect STDIN, STDOUT and STDERR file descriptors. This was just accepted knowledge. You don't need to do that anymore in systemd service units. Heck, write to stdout or stderr, it'll be recorded in the journal. Check out the openssh-server service unit, you'll see that sshd is run with -D there. Systemd supports daemonized services, it's just not necessary anymore. How is logging handled if services are printing to stdout? Does systemd separate logs (if told to) so that e.g. my sshd logs are separate from my postfix logs? 4.) Debugging. Why is my unit not starting when I can start it from the command line? Once I figured out journalctl it was a bit easier, and typically it was SELinux, but no longer being able to just run 'bash -x /etc/rc.d/init.d/foobar' was frustrating. sytemd disables core dumps on services by default (at least it did on Fedora, the documentation now says it's on by default. Huh. I should test that...) Hmm, this seems most problematic of the issues you've described so far. Is journalctl the way to get to stdout/err of a systemd unit? If a service fails, where is that failure logged, and where is the output of the failed executable logged? Thanks for your patience in this sometimes frustrating thread. ;-) --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Jul 15, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Keith Keller kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us wrote: On 2014-07-15, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: 2.) Daemons under systemd don't really need to daemonize anymore. In the past, to start up a daemon process, you'd need to fork (or double-fork) and disconnect STDIN, STDOUT and STDERR file descriptors. This was just accepted knowledge. You don't need to do that anymore in systemd service units. Heck, write to stdout or stderr, it'll be recorded in the journal. Check out the openssh-server service unit, you'll see that sshd is run with -D there. Systemd supports daemonized services, it's just not necessary anymore. How is logging handled if services are printing to stdout? Does systemd separate logs (if told to) so that e.g. my sshd logs are separate from my postfix logs? Service stdout logging goes to the journal and is copied to rsyslog, log entries are tagged with the control group they came from, in addition to the process name, so it is easy to see any logs, whether via syslog or stdout, generated by any process in the sshd.service control group, or postfix.service control group. $ journalctl --follow _SYSTEMD_UNIT=sshd.service man systemd.journal-fields for a list of all the fields you can search on 4.) Debugging. Why is my unit not starting when I can start it from the command line? Once I figured out journalctl it was a bit easier, and typically it was SELinux, but no longer being able to just run 'bash -x /etc/rc.d/init.d/foobar' was frustrating. sytemd disables core dumps on services by default (at least it did on Fedora, the documentation now says it's on by default. Huh. I should test that...) Hmm, this seems most problematic of the issues you've described so far. Is journalctl the way to get to stdout/err of a systemd unit? If a service fails, where is that failure logged, and where is the output of the failed executable logged? When you view the status of a service with systemctl it shows you the command line, when it last tried to start it, what processes are associated with the service if any are running, what the exit code was, and the last few lines from the journal of anything logged by that service, so is kind of a one-stop-shop. For example: $ systemctl status sshd sshd.service - OpenSSH server daemon Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sshd.service; enabled) Active: active (running) since Thu 2014-07-10 20:55:47 CDT; 4 days ago Process: 1149 ExecStartPre=/usr/sbin/sshd-keygen (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 1164 (sshd) CGroup: /system.slice/sshd.service └─1164 /usr/sbin/sshd -D Jul 10 20:55:47 localhost systemd[1]: Starting OpenSSH server daemon... Jul 10 20:55:47 localhost systemd[1]: Started OpenSSH server daemon. Jul 10 20:55:48 localhost sshd[1164]: Server listening on 0.0.0.0 port 22. Jul 10 20:55:48 localhost sshd[1164]: Server listening on :: port 22. $ sudo systemctl stop sshd $ systemctl status sshd sshd.service - OpenSSH server daemon Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/sshd.service; enabled) Active: inactive (dead) since Tue 2014-07-15 17:29:09 CDT; 3s ago Process: 1164 ExecStart=/usr/sbin/sshd -D $OPTIONS (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Process: 1149 ExecStartPre=/usr/sbin/sshd-keygen (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Main PID: 1164 (code=exited, status=0/SUCCESS) Jul 10 20:55:47 localhost systemd[1]: Starting OpenSSH server daemon... Jul 10 20:55:47 localhost systemd[1]: Started OpenSSH server daemon. Jul 10 20:55:48 localhost sshd[1164]: Server listening on 0.0.0.0 port 22. Jul 10 20:55:48 localhost sshd[1164]: Server listening on :: port 22. Jul 15 17:29:09 localhost systemd[1]: Stopping OpenSSH server daemon... Jul 15 17:29:09 localhost sshd[1164]: Received signal 15; terminating. Jul 15 17:29:09 localhost systemd[1]: Stopped OpenSSH server daemon. — Mark Tinberg, System Administrator Division of Information Technology - Network Services University of Wisconsin - Madison mtinb...@wisc.edu ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 10:25 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: the big thing with any of these new service managers (I'm more familiar with Solaris SMF than systemd, but I believe it does the same thing), is that it determines whether the service properly starts and tracks service dependencies.sysVinit style services could only be sequenced (start all lower numbered services before starting this one) and it had to wait for each service to start before going onto the next, while SMF and presumably systemd will start multiple services in parallel as long as they aren't dependent.also, SMF at least detects when a service fails/stops, and attempts to take corrective action per how that service is configured Thank you for the enlightening information. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 11:00 -0700, Keith Keller wrote: apachectl configtest (which is all the init script does anyway) Thanks. Its useful information. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/12/2014 11:08 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: [I wasn't going to reply; but after thinking about it for quite a while, there are a few points here that deserve just a bit of level-headed attention.] On 07/11/2014 10:53 AM, David G. Miller wrote: Les Mikesell lesmikesell@... writes: Or, if you want things to respawn, the original init handled that very nicely via inittab. Replying to Les' comment: the original inittab respawn method is completely brain-dead, blindly respawning without any thought for what conditions might need to be checked, etc. Just pointing out one of several approaches to respawning a daemon without the overhead of systemd. Replying to David: So you'd prefer the overhead of cron plus shells plus a bit of arcane syntax? When I first replied to this crontab line, I honestly thought you were being tongue-in-cheek. I have a similar sort of kluge in place, on a CentOS 6 system at a client, that uses the autossh package to hold open ssh reverse tunnels; reverse tunnels are great when the client's machine is behind a known-to-change-frequently dynamic address. I went with this approach since the problem is not with radvd or its init script but with my IPv6 tunnel provider. Sounds like something that systemd's concept of process dependencies could solve for you with an easier (and non-executable) syntax. Systemd provides an 'OnFailure' directive that allows you to do whatever you'd like upon failure of an particular 'unit.' That sort of mechanism might allow you to implement the process equivalent of Cisco IOS' IP SLA's. (You could mount /etc (and /var) noexec and have /usr and friends mounted read-only, even.) I wanted something that didn't require modifying any of the installed bits. This is why sysadmin configs for systemd are in /etc and the OS-supplied configs are in /usr. Your /etc 'units' to systemd will override the OS installed ones, and are all collected together in one well-defined and standard place. This approach also means that updates to radvd and friends don't overwrite my modifications. This is why sysadmin configs for systemd are in /etc and the OS-supplied configs are in /usr. Your /etc 'units' for systemd will not be touched by the updates to the OS-supplied ones. Just playing with the IPv6 stuff so having it down for up to five minutes also isn't a problem. The source of the problem goes away when my ISP provides IPv6 and I don't need to tunnel IPv6 in IPv4 anymore. If you can figure out IPv6 then systemd should be no sweat. I look at systemd as being yet another nuclear fly swatter. Overkill for simple problems that can and should be be addressed at the problem without a sweeping, system level change. I have done all of the various init styles at various times, so I make this statement having 27 years of experience dealing with Unix-like systems (I won't bore anyone with the list): in my quick perusal of systemd and its documentation, I'm cautiously optimistic that maybe finally we have something that a sysadmin can really make sing. Time will tell, of course, whether systemd actually addresses the core problems or not; we've already had one round of an init replacement, Upstart, that didn't succeed in fully addressing the core problems (but will be with us until 2020 as part of EL6). And I always reserve the right to be wrong. But traditional SystemV init last appears in EL5, which, while it is still supported until 2017, is two major versions old at this point. And in case you missed the announcement from Red Hat, EL5.11 is the last minor version update of EL5, with subsequent updates being released as they come and not batched into point releases. (I now know my last targeted version for IA64 rebuilding, which is good.as long as I can put in some automation to grab updates from then on). Hi Lamar, Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 07:18 -0500, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? There is an old English saying Never put all your eggs in the same basket. If systemd has a bug or is exploited, because it does so many different things, the resulting damage to a working system is potentially significantly greater than if systemd did less functions. As previously stated by JH, its in RH so its in Centos. We have to accept it or go elsewhere. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Like OpenSSL ? On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits mark Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS’s have vulns and exploits, no matter what you decide to believe. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/14/2014 11:26 AM, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits mark Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS's have vulns and exploits, no matter what you decide to believe. Sigh, nothing like someone who is in a constant state of deniability. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 07/14/2014 11:26 AM, William Woods wrote:
On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
William Woods wrote:
Please stop top posting.
On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
William Woods wrote:
On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net
wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985
my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be
everything which makes
it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze!
My $.02
+ $ 10.00 :-)
Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ?
Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other
unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server
vulnerabilities
that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how
fast they were admitted, and fixed.
Like OpenSSL ?
I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server
exploits
mark
Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS's have vulns and exploits, no matter
what you decide to believe.
Sigh, nothing like someone who is in a constant state of deniability.
Ok, I posted last week a question in this list about configuring
two interfaces, one of which being a bridge, to get dhcp and make the
bridge one be the primary one as far as which dns and router to pick.
Using systemd only was my requirement. i.e. using /etc/systemd/system/
instead of /etc/sysconfig/network{,-scripts}.
The replies I got were oh, you can still use
/etc/sysconfig/network{,-scripts} with systemd *for now*, so you can
kludge it together. What's the point then? systemd is supposed to
handle something as simple as two little interfaces; I am not even
talking about vlans and virtual interfaces. I know how to do it using
/etc/sysconfig/network{,-scripts}, but that is besides the point. If
systemd is the Way of the Future, I should be able to do this simple
configuration in it in CentOS 7. After all, with CentOS 7, systemd is
the de facto way to do things, right?
I do sound annoyed because I am: I keep hearing about how systemd is
going to liberate us from the Old White Man way of doing things, and
I am willing to be the devil's advocate here for I plan on using Linux
in the foreseeable future. But, if it cannot deliver me two little
interfaces up and running -- not asking for cookies and a massage but
would not turn them down if I get my interfaces up and happy -- I do
have an issue.
So, for those who know the Way of The systemd, please show me here or
in my thread (so we keep this one on-topic) how to do that in a
completely systemd-networkd way (and why what I wrote is boink). Is
that too much to ask?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
--
Stephen Clark
*NetWolves Managed Services, LLC.*
Director of Technology
Phone: 813-579-3200
Fax: 813-882-0209
Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com
http://www.netwolves.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits mark Are you really trying to win the thread with but omg windows!? All software is swiss cheese, the only really secure software is turned off. Windows is no more or less secure than anything else out there. OpenSSL is sadly an excellent example of that. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Jul 14, 2014, at 11:19 AM, Andrew Wyatt and...@fuduntu.org wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits mark Are you really trying to win the thread with but omg windows!? All software is swiss cheese, the only really secure software is turned off. Windows is no more or less secure than anything else out there. OpenSSL is sadly an excellent example of that. I was going to bring up OpenSSL but…..yea that. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Steve Clark wrote: On 07/14/2014 11:26 AM, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS's have vulns and exploits, no matter what you decide to believe. Sigh, nothing like someone who is in a constant state of deniability. Replying to this, because I saw a reply from him, but there was no new content, for some reason. Anyway, he also seems determined to see it all as black and white, rather than looking at the *much* larger set of bugs and vulnerabilities that Windows Server has had than any version of 'Nix. Sure, we have some... but a *lot* fewer, and overwhelmingly far less serious. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Clark wrote: On 07/14/2014 11:26 AM, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS's have vulns and exploits, no matter what you decide to believe. Sigh, nothing like someone who is in a constant state of deniability. Replying to this, because I saw a reply from him, but there was no new content, for some reason. Anyway, he also seems determined to see it all as black and white, rather than looking at the *much* larger set of bugs and vulnerabilities that Windows Server has had than any version of 'Nix. Sure, we have some... but a *lot* fewer, and overwhelmingly far less serious. mark Yup, overwhelmingly less serious. http://heartbleed.com/ Oh, wait. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Andrew Wyatt wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Clark wrote: On 07/14/2014 11:26 AM, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS's have vulns and exploits, no matter what you decide to believe. Sigh, nothing like someone who is in a constant state of deniability. Replying to this, because I saw a reply from him, but there was no new content, for some reason. Anyway, he also seems determined to see it all as black and white, rather than looking at the *much* larger set of bugs and vulnerabilities that Windows Server has had than any version of 'Nix. Sure, we have some... but a *lot* fewer, and overwhelmingly far less serious. Yup, overwhelmingly less serious. http://heartbleed.com/ Oh, wait. This is *pointless*. Point to something *OTHER* than heartbleed. And as this is the CentOS list, please note that 5.x was *not* affected at all. Or does your attention span not go back more than a couple of months? mark, getting annoyed ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:52 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Andrew Wyatt wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:38 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Steve Clark wrote: On 07/14/2014 11:26 AM, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 10:19 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: Please stop top posting. On Jul 14, 2014, at 9:48 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:15 AM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 06:42 -0400, Steve Clark wrote: Having been working with UNIX like systems since 1985 my biggest complaint with systemd is it so intrusive, it wants to be everything which makes it vulnerable to bugs and exploits - umm.. like Windoze! My $.02 + $ 10.00 :-) Because UNIX has never had a bug or exploit right ? Well... we know that 50% of the Web and 'Net runs on Linux and other unices. Compare and contrast the number of Windows Server vulnerabilities that have been exploited to those of *Nix... and, for extra credit, how fast they were admitted, and fixed. Like OpenSSL ? I suggest you google with the following search criteria: windows server exploits Sigh, nothing like a zealot. ALL OS's have vulns and exploits, no matter what you decide to believe. Sigh, nothing like someone who is in a constant state of deniability. Replying to this, because I saw a reply from him, but there was no new content, for some reason. Anyway, he also seems determined to see it all as black and white, rather than looking at the *much* larger set of bugs and vulnerabilities that Windows Server has had than any version of 'Nix. Sure, we have some... but a *lot* fewer, and overwhelmingly far less serious. Yup, overwhelmingly less serious. http://heartbleed.com/ Oh, wait. This is *pointless*. Point to something *OTHER* than heartbleed. And as this is the CentOS list, please note that 5.x was *not* affected at all. Or does your attention span not go back more than a couple of months? mark, getting annoyed Ok, older. I can do that. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962792 Have another one. Doesn't matter that 5.x wasn't affected at all by Heartbleed, 5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Andrew Wyatt and...@fuduntu.org wrote: Anyway, he also seems determined to see it all as black and white, rather than looking at the *much* larger set of bugs and vulnerabilities that Windows Server has had than any version of 'Nix. Sure, we have some... but a *lot* fewer, and overwhelmingly far less serious. mark Yup, overwhelmingly less serious. http://heartbleed.com/ Oh, wait. Openssl doesn't have much to do with Unix/linux. It is just one of a bazillion application level programs that you might run. Are you going to include all bugs in all possible windows apps in your security comparison? But init/upstart/systemd are very special things in the unix/linux ecosystem. They become the parent process of everything else. For everything else, the only way to create a process is fork(), with it's forced inheritance of environment and security contexts. In any case, giant monolithic programs that try to do everything sometimes become become better than a toolbox, but it tends to be rare. First, it takes years to fix the worst of the bugs - but maybe that has already happened in fedora... And after that it is an improvement only if the designers really did anticipate every possible need. Otherwise the old unix philosophy that processes are cheap - if you need another one to do something, use it - is still in play. If you need something to track how many times something has been respawned or to check/clean related things at startup/restart you'll probably still need a shell there anyway. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Andrew Wyatt and...@fuduntu.org wrote: Anyway, he also seems determined to see it all as black and white, rather than looking at the *much* larger set of bugs and vulnerabilities that Windows Server has had than any version of 'Nix. Sure, we have some... but a *lot* fewer, and overwhelmingly far less serious. mark Yup, overwhelmingly less serious. http://heartbleed.com/ Oh, wait. Openssl doesn't have much to do with Unix/linux. It is just one of a bazillion application level programs that you might run. Are you going to include all bugs in all possible windows apps in your security comparison? OpenSSL is a library, not an application, but I understand where you're going with this. No you wouldn't include all Windows apps, but you would include anything that's immediately available to Windows. Same principle here. We wouldn't measure Oracle, like we wouldn't SQL server but we would OpenSSL because it's available in the repo and not third party. But init/upstart/systemd are very special things in the unix/linux ecosystem. They become the parent process of everything else. For everything else, the only way to create a process is fork(), with it's forced inheritance of environment and security contexts. Yes, they sure are, you're right about that. Without an init (of any kind), you only have a kernel. You don't have mounted filesystems, or anything else. In any case, giant monolithic programs that try to do everything sometimes become become better than a toolbox, but it tends to be rare. First, it takes years to fix the worst of the bugs - but maybe that has already happened in fedora... And after that it is an improvement only if the designers really did anticipate every possible need. Otherwise the old unix philosophy that processes are cheap - if you need another one to do something, use it - is still in play. If you need something to track how many times something has been respawned or to check/clean related things at startup/restart you'll probably still need a shell there anyway. It's very rare. I wasn't speaking to this though in this instance, I was only speaking to Windows security not being any better or worse than anything else. Security is only as good as your admins and your implementation. It's also an on-going process on any platform. I was just pointing out that it's beyond silly to because windows is less secure!. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 11:19 -0500, Andrew Wyatt wrote: Windows is no more or less secure than anything else out there. Not with so many of Windoze world-wide users getting viruses all the time. Centos is inherently more secure than Windoze. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 12:02 -0500, Andrew Wyatt wrote: 5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle. 1/3 of my servers use C 5.10, 2/3 use C 6.5. I use C 5.10 as my individual development server and desktop. C 5 works well for me. Centos 5 Fan :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote:
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 12:02 -0500, Andrew Wyatt wrote:
5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle.
1/3 of my servers use C 5.10, 2/3 use C 6.5. I use C 5.10 as my
individual development server and desktop.
C 5 works well for me.
Centos 5 Fan :-)
Ancient ≠ bad. :)
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU.
Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office.
Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 12:02 -0500, Andrew Wyatt wrote: 5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle. 1/3 of my servers use C 5.10, 2/3 use C 6.5. I use C 5.10 as my individual development server and desktop. C 5 works well for me. Centos 5 Fan :-) That is probably the most pointless comment you have made yet. Just because you use something, and you are a fan does not mean anything in the context of the discussion. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:05 PM, William Woods wood...@gmail.com wrote: 1/3 of my servers use C 5.10, 2/3 use C 6.5. I use C 5.10 as my individual development server and desktop. C 5 works well for me. Centos 5 Fan :-) That is probably the most pointless comment you have made yet. Just because you use something, and you are a fan does not mean anything in the context of the discussion. On the contrary - it means his services start just fine without systemd, and the best systemd is going to do is start them the same way - that is, not be an improvement even after someone wastes the time to rewrite the startup code. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 14:05 -0500, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: C 5 works well for me. Centos 5 Fan :-) That is probably the most pointless comment you have made yet. Just because you use something, and you are a fan does not mean anything in the context of the discussion. On the contrary it means a discerning user like me, never adverse to complaining, is satisfied with the quality product C 5 undoubtedly is. And satisfied sufficiently to use it instead of C6 and C7. Elsewhere you subsequently mentioned, after your apparently derogatory remark about C5 being ancient that ancient does not mean bad. I concur. Have a nice day. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Always Learning wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 11:19 -0500, Andrew Wyatt wrote: Windows is no more or less secure than anything else out there. That is a false statement. Not with so many of Windoze world-wide users getting viruses all the time. Centos is inherently more secure than Windoze. Yup. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 11:19 -0500, Andrew Wyatt wrote: Windows is no more or less secure than anything else out there. Not with so many of Windoze world-wide users getting viruses all the time. Centos is inherently more secure than Windoze. I would argue that also has to do with the average windows. You know, the human engineering part of being attacked (Your computer is infected! The red blinking light says so! Click here to install our 'sheep-me' program, making sure to run it as an admin user!) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 7/14/2014 12:48 PM, Always Learning wrote: On the contrary it means a discerning user like me, never adverse to complaining, is satisfied with the quality product C 5 undoubtedly is. And satisfied sufficiently to use it instead of C6 and C7. perhaps you should change your username from Always Learning, as it appears you've decided to stop as of about 5 years ago. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 14:05 -0500, William Woods wrote: On Jul 14, 2014, at 2:02 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: C 5 works well for me. Centos 5 Fan :-) That is probably the most pointless comment you have made yet. Just because you use something, and you are a fan does not mean anything in the context of the discussion. On the contrary it means a discerning user like me, never adverse to complaining, is satisfied with the quality product C 5 undoubtedly is. And satisfied sufficiently to use it instead of C6 and C7. Elsewhere you subsequently mentioned, after your apparently derogatory remark about C5 being ancient that ancient does not mean bad. I concur. Have a nice day. William didn't say that it was ancient, I did. If you think that 5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle is derogatory, it should come as no surprise to us that you've mixed up who you were talking too. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
John R Pierce wrote: On 7/14/2014 12:48 PM, Always Learning wrote: On the contrary it means a discerning user like me, never adverse to complaining, is satisfied with the quality product C 5 undoubtedly is. And satisfied sufficiently to use it instead of C6 and C7. perhaps you should change your username from Always Learning, as it appears you've decided to stop as of about 5 years ago. a) This is rude. b) We have several 5.x servers here. For one, we kept one or two home directory servers at 5.x due to writing to an NFS mounted home directory from a 6.x server could be a literal order of magnitude slower. It took us over a year to find that if we added nobarrier to the filesystems that it was 10% slower. c) We have some production boxes that are 5.10. *YOU* go and tell managers that we're going to take down their production boxes and upgrade them, or were *you* personally going to assure that their budgets would be upped to provide replacement servers that could be built and tested prior to replacement (and note that the last set just got upgraded just before 6.0 came out in '12?)... and this is part of an agency of the US government, and we are *NOT* DOD. Care to talk to your Congresscritters to assure this, if you're a US resident? mark, not sure when I'll go to 7 at home, what with systemd ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 7/14/2014 1:56 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: c) We have some production boxes that are 5.10.*YOU* go and tell managers that we're going to take down their production boxes and upgrade them, or were*you* personally going to assure that their budgets would be upped to provide replacement servers that could be built and tested prior to replacement (and note that the last set just got upgraded just before 6.0 came out in '12?)... do you have plans to replace/upgrade them prior to the end of maintenance updates circa March 2017 ? btw, 6.0 came out in july 2011 -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
John R Pierce wrote: On 7/14/2014 1:56 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: c) We have some production boxes that are 5.10.*YOU* go and tell managers that we're going to take down their production boxes and upgrade them, or were*you* personally going to assure that their budgets would be upped to provide replacement servers that could be built and tested prior to replacement (and note that the last set just got upgraded just before 6.0 came out in '12?)... do you have plans to replace/upgrade them prior to the end of maintenance updates circa March 2017 ? Do I? I'm just a sysadmin. Perhaps you should reread the above... or maybe you're not familiar with working in a organizational environment. snip mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/14/2014 02:03 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 7/14/2014 1:56 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: c) We have some production boxes that are 5.10.*YOU* go and tell managers that we're going to take down their production boxes and upgrade them, or were*you* personally going to assure that their budgets would be upped to provide replacement servers that could be built and tested prior to replacement (and note that the last set just got upgraded just before 6.0 came out in '12?)... do you have plans to replace/upgrade them prior to the end of maintenance updates circa March 2017 ? btw, 6.0 came out in july 2011 This is the US gov he is dealing with. He will end up having to do what congress agrees he can do. When you get laws put forth (fortunately shouted down) that want to repeal Pi because it is irrational? Look at Detroit for how governments like to kick problems down the road until the mudball is too big to kick anymore. Look for an emergency funding request in Feb 2017... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 12:59 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: On 7/14/2014 12:48 PM, Always Learning wrote: On the contrary it means a discerning user like me, never adverse to complaining, is satisfied with the quality product C 5 undoubtedly is. And satisfied sufficiently to use it instead of C6 and C7. perhaps you should change your username from Always Learning, as it appears you've decided to stop as of about 5 years ago. Optimistically I will continue learning about a wide range of differing subjects until I die, probably in about 10 years or so. I continue to learn new things about C5, and the programmes than run on it, the BSDs, Linux kernel, minor CSS syntaxes. It is fascinating. Next month I hope to enrol in German and Polish evening classes. I would have preferred Norwegian (Bokmal) and Dutch (Nederlands) but the local college don't have them. In November I would like to start a law degree :-) I am never complacent and tomorrow I do the first of the compulsory 3 tests for my motorbike licence (theory and hazard perception, despite riding my bike for the last year as a Learner) - I'm definitely Always Learning and not ashamed to admit it. Centos is clearly a refreshing and invigorating breeze compared to Windoze. Having about 47 years years experience as a computer programmer, I am naturally reticent about systemd - but then every clever and thinking person would be too. I've experienced too many computer problems to trust everything to script kiddies or their grown-up enthusiastic cousins. Have a nice evening. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 15:10 -0500, Andrew Wyatt wrote: William didn't say that it was ancient, I did. If you think that 5.x is ancient and had its own set of flaws over its lifecycle is derogatory, it should come as no surprise to us that you've mixed up who you were talking too. I was preoccupied studying for my exam tomorrow. No harm done and my points are valid. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 7/14/2014 2:30 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Do I? I'm just a sysadmin. Perhaps you should reread the above... or maybe you're not familiar with working in a organizational environment. I work in a corporation, supporting software development for manufacturing. unsupported hardware/software is retired per corporate policy. I actually get a fair amount of grief from using Centos in my development environment, production uses RHEL under contract (or AIX or Solaris or...) -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 2014-07-07, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: Reading about systemd, it seems it is not well liked and reminiscent of Microsoft's put everything into the Windows Registry (Win 95 onwards). Has anyone here actually interacted with systemd, and if so could you perhaps provide a writeup of your experiences? I feel like I haven't seen any practical information on systemd in this thread, and I'd like to have that before forming an initial opinion (at which point I'd attempt to interact with it myself in order to form a better informed opinion). --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 03:52:10PM -0700, Keith Keller wrote: On 2014-07-07, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: Reading about systemd, it seems it is not well liked and reminiscent of Microsoft's put everything into the Windows Registry (Win 95 onwards). Has anyone here actually interacted with systemd, and if so could you perhaps provide a writeup of your experiences? I feel like I haven't seen any practical information on systemd in this thread, and I'd like to have that before forming an initial opinion (at which point I'd attempt to interact with it myself in order to form a better informed opinion). I've been using systemd ever since it was introduced in Fedora, and the RHEL7 beta and CentOS7 final since it came out. I could tell you about all the positive and negative experiences I've had. There's been a lot of misinformation posted on this list (such as the Windows Registry reference)[1]. I wouldn't want to make any decisions about systemd based on what I've seen on this list. However, I think you should try it out yourself. I suggest giving it a try in a VM, or try one of the CentOS7 LiveCDs. I was quite hesitant about systemd when I started using it, but it was experience that led me to be able to make good judgements about it. 1. See the systemd myths web page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html -- Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 2014-07-15, Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org wrote: I've been using systemd ever since it was introduced in Fedora, and the RHEL7 beta and CentOS7 final since it came out. I could tell you about all the positive and negative experiences I've had. I think this could be very useful, especially coming from someone who was initially reluctant (as I and clearly others are). There's been a lot of misinformation posted on this list (such as the Windows Registry reference)[1]. I wouldn't want to make any decisions about systemd based on what I've seen on this list. That's what I was concerned about. :) I certainly would try it for myself first, but if I were to read a lot of people writing I tried to actually use systemd, and it was awful/fine/awesome that would carry some weight. However, I think you should try it out yourself. I suggest giving it a try in a VM, or try one of the CentOS7 LiveCDs. I was quite hesitant about systemd when I started using it, but it was experience that led me to be able to make good judgements about it. 1. See the systemd myths web page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html In the interest of full disclosure, that page is written by one of the primary authors of systemd, so we shouldn't expect an unbiased opinion. (Not saying it's wrong, only that it's important to understand the perspective an author might have.) --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
[I wasn't going to reply; but after thinking about it for quite a while, there are a few points here that deserve just a bit of level-headed attention.] On 07/11/2014 10:53 AM, David G. Miller wrote: Les Mikesell lesmikesell@... writes: Or, if you want things to respawn, the original init handled that very nicely via inittab. Replying to Les' comment: the original inittab respawn method is completely brain-dead, blindly respawning without any thought for what conditions might need to be checked, etc. Just pointing out one of several approaches to respawning a daemon without the overhead of systemd. Replying to David: So you'd prefer the overhead of cron plus shells plus a bit of arcane syntax? When I first replied to this crontab line, I honestly thought you were being tongue-in-cheek. I have a similar sort of kluge in place, on a CentOS 6 system at a client, that uses the autossh package to hold open ssh reverse tunnels; reverse tunnels are great when the client's machine is behind a known-to-change-frequently dynamic address. I went with this approach since the problem is not with radvd or its init script but with my IPv6 tunnel provider. Sounds like something that systemd's concept of process dependencies could solve for you with an easier (and non-executable) syntax. Systemd provides an 'OnFailure' directive that allows you to do whatever you'd like upon failure of an particular 'unit.' That sort of mechanism might allow you to implement the process equivalent of Cisco IOS' IP SLA's. (You could mount /etc (and /var) noexec and have /usr and friends mounted read-only, even.) I wanted something that didn't require modifying any of the installed bits. This is why sysadmin configs for systemd are in /etc and the OS-supplied configs are in /usr. Your /etc 'units' to systemd will override the OS installed ones, and are all collected together in one well-defined and standard place. This approach also means that updates to radvd and friends don't overwrite my modifications. This is why sysadmin configs for systemd are in /etc and the OS-supplied configs are in /usr. Your /etc 'units' for systemd will not be touched by the updates to the OS-supplied ones. Just playing with the IPv6 stuff so having it down for up to five minutes also isn't a problem. The source of the problem goes away when my ISP provides IPv6 and I don't need to tunnel IPv6 in IPv4 anymore. If you can figure out IPv6 then systemd should be no sweat. I look at systemd as being yet another nuclear fly swatter. Overkill for simple problems that can and should be be addressed at the problem without a sweeping, system level change. I have done all of the various init styles at various times, so I make this statement having 27 years of experience dealing with Unix-like systems (I won't bore anyone with the list): in my quick perusal of systemd and its documentation, I'm cautiously optimistic that maybe finally we have something that a sysadmin can really make sing. Time will tell, of course, whether systemd actually addresses the core problems or not; we've already had one round of an init replacement, Upstart, that didn't succeed in fully addressing the core problems (but will be with us until 2020 as part of EL6). And I always reserve the right to be wrong. But traditional SystemV init last appears in EL5, which, while it is still supported until 2017, is two major versions old at this point. And in case you missed the announcement from Red Hat, EL5.11 is the last minor version update of EL5, with subsequent updates being released as they come and not batched into point releases. (I now know my last targeted version for IA64 rebuilding, which is good.as long as I can put in some automation to grab updates from then on). ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Am 12.07.2014 um 17:08 schrieb Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu: [I wasn't going to reply; but after thinking about it for quite a while, there are a few points here that deserve just a bit of level-headed attention.] On 07/11/2014 10:53 AM, David G. Miller wrote: Les Mikesell lesmikesell@... writes: Or, if you want things to respawn, the original init handled that very nicely via inittab. Replying to Les' comment: the original inittab respawn method is completely brain-dead, blindly respawning without any thought for what conditions might need to be checked, etc. That’s probably true. But still, I believe that much of the complexity of systemd (that it apparently has) comes from the fact that it’s most intended to provide a „smooth“ desktop experience. Now, it looks like almost everything is a „service“. Can I pick an example? [root@ipa ~]# systemctl list-unit-files |grep ssh sshd-keygen.service static sshd.serviceenabled sshd@.service static sshd.socket disabled What is the difference between sshd.service and sshd@.service? Am I right in assuming that the sshd-keygen.service is responsible for creating the initial host-keys? I may be wrong, but sshd works nice on my 100+ servers without a special service for this. In fact, I loathed the Solaris-behavior, where you had to „refresh“ the service for this (or something to this effect) On FreeBSD, if I want to create new keys, I delete the old ones and restart the service. I very rarely need that, so I just assume it’s the same on RHEL. Can anyone give an example from a stock RHEL7 install that could not have been done with a traditional SysV-init? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@... writes: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:39 AM, David G. Miller dave@... wrote: Generally speaking, if a service is broken to the point that it needs something to automatically restart it I'd rather have it die gracefully and not do surprising things until someone fixes it. But then again, doesn't mysqld manage to accomplish that in a fully-compatible manner on Centos6? Can't find the original post so replying and agreeing with Les. Have the same ongoing problem with radvd. When My IPv6 tunnel provider burps, the tunnel drops. The tunnel daemon usually reconnects but radvd stays down. Solution: */12 * * * * /sbin/service radvd status /dev/null 21 || /sbin/service radvd start 21 in crontab. How hard is that? And without all of the systemd nonsense. Or, if you want things to respawn, the original init handled that very nicely via inittab. Also,running a shell as the parent of your daemon as a watchdog that can repair its environment and restart it if it exits doesn't have much overhead. Programs share the loaded executable code across all instances and you pretty much always have some shells running on a linux/unix box - a few more won't matter. Just pointing out one of several approaches to respawning a daemon without the overhead of systemd. I went with this approach since the problem is not with radvd or its init script but with my IPv6 tunnel provider. I wanted something that didn't require modifying any of the installed bits. This approach also means that updates to radvd and friends don't overwrite my modifications. Just playing with the IPv6 stuff so having it down for up to five minutes also isn't a problem. The source of the problem goes away when my ISP provides IPv6 and I don't need to tunnel IPv6 in IPv4 anymore. I look at systemd as being yet another nuclear fly swatter. Overkill for simple problems that can and should be be addressed at the problem without a sweeping, system level change. Cheers, Dave ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:33 +0530, Arun Khan wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:02 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: 'Ey! What'cho got 'gainst punch cards? and let's not forget the punched tapes :) 5 hole or 7 hole ? -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/10/14 06:42, Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:33 +0530, Arun Khan wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:02 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: 'Ey! What'cho got 'gainst punch cards? and let's not forget the punched tapes :) 5 hole or 7 hole ? Sorry, but when I hear that, I think of what my first wife used as the typesetter for an underground newspaper mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Les Mikesell lesmikesell@... writes: On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:16 PM, Reindl Harald h.reindl@... wrote: Am 08.07.2014 17:58, schrieb Les Mikesell: On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn dennisml@... wrote: Also the switch from messy bash scripts to a declarative configuration makes things easier once you get used to the syntax. Sorry, but I'd recommend that anyone who thinks shell syntax is 'messy' just stay away from unix-like systems instead of destroying the best parts of them WTF - you can place a shell-script in ExecStart and set type to 'oneshot' - nobody is taking anything away from you Unless you are offering to do that for me, for free, on all my systems, having to do it certainly does take something away. Then there is the fact that services are actually monitored and can be restarted automatically if they fail/crash and they run in a sane environment where stdout is redirected into the journal so that all output is caught which can be useful for debugging. What part of i/o redirection does the shell not handle well for you? wtaht part of monitoring did you not understand? Generally speaking, if a service is broken to the point that it needs something to automatically restart it I'd rather have it die gracefully and not do surprising things until someone fixes it. But then again, doesn't mysqld manage to accomplish that in a fully-compatible manner on Centos6? Can't find the original post so replying and agreeing with Les. Have the same ongoing problem with radvd. When My IPv6 tunnel provider burps, the tunnel drops. The tunnel daemon usually reconnects but radvd stays down. Solution: */12 * * * * /sbin/service radvd status /dev/null 21 || /sbin/service radvd start 21 in crontab. How hard is that? And without all of the systemd nonsense. Cheers, Dave ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/10/2014 07:55 AM, mark wrote: On 07/10/14 06:42, Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:33 +0530, Arun Khan wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:02 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: 'Ey! What'cho got 'gainst punch cards? and let's not forget the punched tapes :) 5 hole or 7 hole ? Sorry, but when I hear that, I think of what my first wife used as the typesetter for an underground newspaper I assume it was not a linotypewriter that put out lead letters ready for the printing presses? My uncle worked for the Cleveland Press as a typesetter. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/10/2014 09:39 AM, David G. Miller wrote: Can't find the original post so replying and agreeing with Les. Have the same ongoing problem with radvd. When My IPv6 tunnel provider burps, the tunnel drops. The tunnel daemon usually reconnects but radvd stays down. Solution: */12 * * * * /sbin/service radvd status /dev/null 21 || /sbin/service radvd start 21 in crontab. How hard is that? And without all of the systemd nonsense. That, my friend, is a textbook example of a kluge. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Robert Moskowitz wrote: On 07/10/2014 07:55 AM, mark wrote: On 07/10/14 06:42, Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:33 +0530, Arun Khan wrote: On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:02 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: 'Ey! What'cho got 'gainst punch cards? and let's not forget the punched tapes :) 5 hole or 7 hole ? Sorry, but when I hear that, I think of what my first wife used as the typesetter for an underground newspaper I assume it was not a linotypewriter that put out lead letters ready for the printing presses? My uncle worked for the Cleveland Press as a typesetter. They just had one office suite. She'd type the tape, and that would be sent off to the printers. mark we won't talk about the month I punch Addressograph plates ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 8:39 AM, David G. Miller d...@davenjudy.org wrote: Generally speaking, if a service is broken to the point that it needs something to automatically restart it I'd rather have it die gracefully and not do surprising things until someone fixes it. But then again, doesn't mysqld manage to accomplish that in a fully-compatible manner on Centos6? Can't find the original post so replying and agreeing with Les. Have the same ongoing problem with radvd. When My IPv6 tunnel provider burps, the tunnel drops. The tunnel daemon usually reconnects but radvd stays down. Solution: */12 * * * * /sbin/service radvd status /dev/null 21 || /sbin/service radvd start 21 in crontab. How hard is that? And without all of the systemd nonsense. Or, if you want things to respawn, the original init handled that very nicely via inittab. Also,running a shell as the parent of your daemon as a watchdog that can repair its environment and restart it if it exits doesn't have much overhead. Programs share the loaded executable code across all instances and you pretty much always have some shells running on a linux/unix box - a few more won't matter. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Tue, July 8, 2014 08:09, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote: That presumes that your conservative attitude is the majority opinion though. Systemd is one of the features that I have been looking forward to in CentOS 7 because of the new capabilities it provides so while this will surely drive some people away it will actually attract others and if you think that this will lead to some sort of great exodus then I think you are mistaken. Not everybody is this uncomfortable with change. Regards, Dennis Well, while Linus Torvald is not everyone, he is certainly someone. And I do not believe, although I could be mistaken on the point, that Linus's current thoughts on Systemd would be considered printable in a public forum. At a guess, I would put it right up there with Gnome2 in his estimation -- *** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:39 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: mark we won't talk about the month I punch Addressograph plates Addressograph plates? That is really ancient ! but they were incredible useful in those days. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:39 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: mark we won't talk about the month I punch Addressograph plates Addressograph plates? That is really ancient ! but they were incredible useful in those days. Yeah... but did you ever do it, or see it done? Forget the old manual Underwood, this required actual *force* hitting the keys (yes, the machine was electric). No speed, either - the actuator arms had to hit the metal. WHAM-WHAM-WHAM-WHAM mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 12:47 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:39 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: mark we won't talk about the month I punch Addressograph plates Addressograph plates? That is really ancient ! but they were incredible useful in those days. Yeah... but did you ever do it, or see it done? Forget the old manual Underwood, this required actual *force* hitting the keys (yes, the machine was electric). No speed, either - the actuator arms had to hit the metal. WHAM-WHAM-WHAM-WHAM Saw the plates being used to emboss invoices. Power Sumas cards then produced the invoice details. Then along came a Honeywell 1250, a punch room, coding sheets, masses and masses of punched cards, manual hand punches, electric punching machines and verifiers and even an electric portable verifier too. Only had to wait for about 60 to 90 minutes for the results of a Cobol programme, meanwhile nothing else ran. Wish I had photographed everything then. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:39 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: mark we won't talk about the month I punch Addressograph plates Addressograph plates? That is really ancient ! but they were incredible useful in those days. Yeah... but did you ever do it, or see it done? Forget the old manual Underwood, this required actual *force* hitting the keys (yes, the machine was electric). No speed, either - the actuator arms had to hit the metal. WHAM-WHAM-WHAM-WHAM Any picts or videos? I am just picturing a room with those thingies and a couple of Jacob's latters and a Van der Graff while on the background a table with a covered body is being slowly raised to the roof. No, not the third switch! mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 14:48 -0400, Mauricio Tavares wrote: On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Always Learning wrote: On Thu, 2014-07-10 at 10:39 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: mark we won't talk about the month I punch Addressograph plates Addressograph plates? That is really ancient ! but they were incredible useful in those days. Yeah... but did you ever do it, or see it done? Forget the old manual Underwood, this required actual *force* hitting the keys (yes, the machine was electric). No speed, either - the actuator arms had to hit the metal. WHAM-WHAM-WHAM-WHAM Any picts or videos? I am just picturing a room with those thingies and a couple of Jacob's latters and a Van der Graff while on the background a table with a covered body is being slowly raised to the roof. No, not the third switch! Sorry mate. The programmers were all busy sitting around the table in the engineers' room playing Bridge (a card game) :-) -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. Centos, Exim, Apache, Libre Office. Linux is the future. Micro$oft is the past. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/08/14 21:45, Hal Wigoda wrote: On Jul 8, 2014, at 4:36 PM, Always Learning cen...@u62.u22.net wrote: On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 17:10 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote: The read up on Grace Hopper and how she 'discovered' an unknown opcode when a mispunch she glued in with nail polish. They used hand punchers a lot on her programming team. Not entirely unknown because the opcode must have been known to the technicians or computer designers but not actually documented for the programmers. 40 used to be NOP (no op) on Honeywells H-200 series. And IBM assembler (Sent from iPhone, so please accept my apologies in advance for any spelling or grammatical errors.) Anyone want to borrow my IBM assembly text from college? I will say, though, that if I could have gotten the republication rights, I'd have put all manufacturers of sleeping pills out of business mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/08/2014 01:19 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: And can you explain the difference between cloud and time-sharing on a mainframe Sure. Cloud is much more dynamic, for better or for worse, than mainframes in ye olde days. Cloud takes advantage on smart clients, and, well, is a bit of a nebulous terms covering many things traditional servers do, but with more of an emphasis on dynamic load balancing. Ideally, if no one is using a server that server should not be running, as it is wasting power. The challenge is to get servers up with low latency. And when I say 'servers' that includes physical iron as well as fully virtualized hardware and more fluid virtual containers that just sortof act like a server. It's all about getting the necessary services to the client processes, regardless of whether the client is smart or dumb. And ideal application for cloud-based technology is renderfarms; transparent spinup and spindown of render machines, which often contain very power-hungry GPUs, saves lots of money. As much as it is going to rub sysadmins the wrong way (because the very comfortable and flexible SA hat is one I wear often it definitely rubs me a bit wrong), ideally the admin should spend time on setup and implementation more than operation; the operation of this dynamic spinup and spindown of resources, once set up by a competent admin, should be entirely user-driven and automated. Ye Olde Mainframes (not the more modern stuff, which *is* more cloud-oriented) never did this and required monstrous opex for personnel. Cloud is about reducing opex, pure and simple. Setup can be capex, and thus a separate budget (at least here, once again wearing the way too stiff CIO hat). Robert mentions security, and that is a very very true statement, and is where it is incumbent upon the admin who sets it up to be competent. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/08/2014 01:22 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 7/8/2014 9:25 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: Physical servers can be told to skip certain parts of their POST, especially the memory test. Memory tests are redundant with ECC. but, you HAVE to zero ALL of memory with ECC to initialize it. True enough; but this shouldn't take five minutes on a server with multiple GB/s memory bandwidth. My Dell 6950's take a full five minutes to POST, and that's ridiculous. There's eight cores; each core has enough bandwidth to its local RAM (NUMA, of course) where it should be able to sustain 2GB/s zeroing without a lot of trouble; that's a rate of 16GB/s aggregate, and my 32GB of RAM should be zeroed in 2 seconds or so. Not five minutes. It's still not as bad as our Sun Enterprise 6500 with 18GB, though, which takes about a minute per GB, which is also ridiculous (it's also NUMA, and the Sun firmware does start up each CPU to test it's own local RAM blocks). ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/08/2014 01:27 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: Memory tests are redundant with ECC. (I know; I have an older SuperMicro server here that passes memory testing in POST but throws nearly continuous ECC errors in operation; it does operate, though). If it fails during spinup, flag the failure while spinning up another server. I don't think that is generally true. I've seen several IBM systems disable memory during POST and come up running will a smaller amount. Yes, and I have a few Dells that do that as well. Unfortunately most OS's aren't 'hotplug/unplug' for RAM, which would alleviate the need to tag it out during POST. But perhaps some of today's and yesterday's hardware just isn't up to the task of reliable rapid power on. So perhaps I should have written 'Memory tests should be redundant with ECC.' Our servers tend to just run till they die. If we didn't need them we wouldn't have bought them in the first place. I suppose there are businesses with different processes that come and go, but I'm not sure that is desirable. Our load graphs here are very spurty, with the spurts going very high during certain image reduction processes. It is to the point where I could probably save money by putting a few of the more power hungry systems that have spurty loads on a timed sleep basis, which WoL bringing them back up prior to the next day's batch. But that's an ad hoc solution, and I really don't like ad hoc solutions when infrastructure ones are available and better tested. If you need load balancing anyway you just run enough spares to cover the failures. And pay the power bill for them ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 7/9/2014 8:34 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: True enough; but this shouldn't take five minutes on a server with multiple GB/s memory bandwidth. My Dell 6950's take a full five minutes to POST, and that's ridiculous. There's eight cores; each core has enough bandwidth to its local RAM (NUMA, of course) where it should be able to sustain 2GB/s zeroing without a lot of trouble; that's a rate of 16GB/s aggregate, and my 32GB of RAM should be zeroed in 2 seconds or so. Not five minutes. i find the biggest part of server POST is all the storage and network adapter bios's need to get in there, scan the storage busses, enumerate raids, initialize intel boot agents, and so forth. -- john r pierce 37N 122W somewhere on the middle of the left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/08/2014 01:14 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: But the answer is still the same. It's sort of the same as asking that about getting a shiny new car with a different door size that won't carry your old stuff without changes and then still won't do it any better. Our services take all the hardware can do and a lot of startup initialization on their own. Saving a fraction of a second of system time starting them is never going to be a good tradeoff for needing additional engineer training time on how to port them between two different versions of the same OS. If there is no ROI, or a really long ROI, well, I still have C6 to run until 2020 while I invest the time in determining if a new way is better or not. So a deferred cost doesn't matter to you? You aren't young enough to still think that 6 years is a long time away, are you? Amortized capex matters to me. I may not have the capex budget this year to do the development, but I do have opex monies to research potential development, and opex monies to do grant writing that can fund the development capex. I'm old enough to remember and to have read an original paper copy of the Misosys Quarterly with a column called 'Les Information.' 6 years is a short time, especially for grant funding cycles. But it is enough time for me to have researched, hopefully properly, the means by which to implement hopefully opex-reducing improvements. But these are business decisions, not technical ones. Re-using things that work may not be best, but if everyone is continually forced to re-implement them, they will never get a chance to do what is best. In terms of your ROI question, you should be asking if that is the best use of your time. My non-development time is opex; my development time is capex (for the purposes of many grants for which we apply). I always ask the question above when figuring ROI. And I got the nickname 'Mr. Make-Do' for the very reason that I do tend to heavily reuse 'ye olde stuffe.' Consistency is not the only goal. But that's why we are here using an 'enterprise' release, not rebuilding gentoo every day. I guess you missed the adjective 'only' above. Consistency helps reduce opex; reduces opex produces better fiscal efficiency, at least in theory. Each business's situation will be different, YMMV, of course. Efficiency should trump consistency, Efficiency comes from following standards... Everyone who commented thus far on my statement seems to have missed my wearing my CIO hat. I'm talking fiscal efficiency, as in getting the most bang for the buck, especially in terms of opex, which is nearly always a much larger number than capex for us (and, while I know this is not likely to make much technical sense, it is a true statement that $1 opex is not equal to $1 capex). This is not 'technical efficiency' here, but 'keep the lights on and the budget in the black' efficiency. If the budget goes red long enough it really doesn't matter what you do technically. If I need to get a grant to fund $100,000 capex that will save me $10,000 per year opex (and grants almost never fund opex) it is a no-brainer. Yes, I remember it worked fantastically well up through at least RH7 - which was pretty much compatible with CentOS3. Minor correction: RHL 7.2 - RHAS 2.1. RHL 9 - RHEL 3. I have a client that still has a RHL 5.2 machine running in production. It does its job, is not internet-connected and thus security updates are irrelevant, and it will run until it dies. Client has no budget to reengineer properly, and is migrating services one at a time in a pretty slow manner. There's only two semi-critical services left, and if they just went away the client would go back to a paper system while a newer system is being built. And they're fully prepared to do that rather than upgrade now. That was back when people actually using the systems contributed their fixes directly. I had a couple of 4+ year uptime runs on a system with RH7 + updates - and only shut it down to move it once. I am one of those people who contributed directly; my name can still be found in the changelogs for PostgreSQL 7.4 on CentOS 4 (and I would assume RHEL4, if PostgreSQL is part of the EUS set). I remember the mechanisms, and the gatekeepers, involved, very well. The Fedora way is way more open, with people outside of Red Hat directly managing packages instead of contributing fixes to the 'official' Red Hat packager for that package. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/08/2014 09:27 PM, Always Learning wrote: Everything, except the kernel, dependent on Poettering's (employed by Red Hat) windows-style gigantic systemd. Nothing can run without systemd's prior consent. One tiny bug in systemd and everything crashes. How is this any different from any other init? Init is the boss, regardless of which flavor of init, full stop. SystemV init has many many problems. The worst problem is that it only deals with start and forget and stop and forget, with relatively fragile shell scripts running as root doing the grunt work. A resilient system init should be a bit more hands-on about making sure its children continue to live... (yuck; you can tell I'm a parent (of five)!). Or, in Bill Cosby's words as Cliff Huxtable to Theo, I brought you into this world, and I can take you out! But an init that takes a bit more care to its offspring, making sure they stay alive until such time as they are needed to die (yuck again!) is a vast improvement over 'start it and forget it.' And, of course, CentOS 6 doesn't use straight SysVInit anyway, but it uses upstart, which lived for quite a while. Incidentally, I'm old enough to remember the recursive acronym MUNG and hereby apply that acronym to this thread.. I'm also familiar with feeping creaturism. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/09/2014 01:00 PM, John R Pierce wrote: i find the biggest part of server POST is all the storage and network adapter bios's need to get in there, scan the storage busses, enumerate raids, initialize intel boot agents, and so forth. I've found that disabling all but the boot device's BIOS works wonders and makes installs far happier, with the exception of real hardware RAID cards. The Linux kernel is quite happy doing any and all fibre-channel enumeration with the HBA's BIOS turned off. (All my large storage is FC and iSCSI SAN). And the 'Intel boot agent' only lives long enough to PXE boot if I need that. The 3Ware 9500's I have typically take a bit longer and require the BIOS, though, but with a small array that's a few tens of seconds, a minute tops. That's one advantage of the Linux mdraid.. But our 6950's spend five minutes only on the memory test; that's not counting the Dell PERC boot device enumeration and drive spinup. The fastest booting servers I have are our two pfSense firewalls; I've trimmed the BIOS setup to the bone and those boxes reboot in a few tens of seconds. (Yeah, I count a firewall as a server, since it's running on server hardware (Intel 5000X-based quad core dual Xeons with 4GB of RAM each; does wire-speed with one million pf table entries on a 1Gb/s WAN link) and providing an essential network service to the rest of the hosts on the network). But, point taken, since there's more to a POST than just the memory test. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: That was back when people actually using the systems contributed their fixes directly. I had a couple of 4+ year uptime runs on a system with RH7 + updates - and only shut it down to move it once. I remember the mechanisms, and the gatekeepers, involved, very well. The Fedora way is way more open, with people outside of Red Hat directly managing packages instead of contributing fixes to the 'official' Red Hat packager for that package. I'm not convinced that being open and receptive to changes from people that aren't using and appear to not even like the existing, working system is better than having a single community, all running the same system because they already like it, and focusing on improving it while keeping things they like and are currently using. With the latter approach, there was a much better sense of the cost of breaking things that previously worked. With fedora, well, nobody cares - they aren't running large scale production systems on it anyway/ -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: But an init that takes a bit more care to its offspring, making sure they stay alive until such time as they are needed to die (yuck again!) is a vast improvement over 'start it and forget it.' So your solution to the problems that happen in complex daemon software is to use even more complex software as a manager for all of them??? Remind me why (a) you think that will be perfect, and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to continue its unpredictable behavior. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Lamar Owen wrote: On 07/09/2014 01:00 PM, John R Pierce wrote: i find the biggest part of server POST is all the storage and network adapter bios's need to get in there, scan the storage busses, enumerate raids, initialize intel boot agents, and so forth. I've found that disabling all but the boot device's BIOS works wonders and makes installs far happier, with the exception of real hardware RAID cards. The Linux kernel is quite happy doing any and all fibre-channel snip To me, what takes the most time on POST, far and away, is memory. We had a box - Dell, I *think*, but it might have been a Penguin (Supermicro) that took close to 20 min, before we turned off the memory check (well, yes, 256GB RAM) What I wish didn't take so long is the raid-45? driver, which seems to take forever, and always has. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/09/2014 01:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I'm not convinced that being open and receptive to changes from people
that aren't using and appear to not even like the existing, working
system is better than having a single community, all running the same
system because they already like it, and focusing on improving it
while keeping things they like and are currently using.
I think you and I remember a different set of lists. I remember lots of
griping about changes being forced down throats. Heh, a quick perusal
of one of the lists' archives just a minute ago confirmed my recollection.
With the latter approach, there was a much better sense of the cost of
breaking things that previously worked.
Do you remember the brouhaha over libc5 that 'just worked' versus the
'changed for no reason' glibc2? And don't get me started on the
recollections over the GNOME 1 to 2 upgrade (or fvwm to GNOME, for that
matter!), or the various KDE upgrades (and the entire lack of KDE for
RHL 5.x due to the odd license for Qt, remember? Mandrake got its start
being essentially RHL with KDE and of course the 'stripping' of KDE
to 'cripple it down the GNOME level' (otherwise known as the 'Red Hat
Desktop')) or the various kernel uprevs (2.4 broke my whatzit2000 that
nobody else has! You CAN'T upgrade!). And then there was gcc 2.96.
(I can feel the tremor in the Source just mentioning that) And then
all the i18n changes for 8.0 (I dealt with that one directly, since the
PostgreSQL ANSI C default had to be changed to whatever was now
localized too bad the Redneck install language has gone away.) And
then there was the weed called Kudzu. The bad rep for x.0 releases
started somewhere, remember? (Smooge was there, too, and has an
extensive page about the differences (this link is from my bookmarks and
memory; AFAIK it still works):
http://www.smoogespace.com/documents/behind_the_names.html ).
And I'm still waiting for my upgrade to Red Baron. ;-), in case you
needed it
Sorry Les, but I was there, and I have the e-mails. I guess people
prefer being able to just gripe without the chance for real
responsibility versus now having a bit of responsibility to help since
the ability to actually do something about it is available.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your observations, by the way. I'm
just looking at the brushstrokes of the really big picture and
remembering how at the time it seemed like we sometimes were just moving
from one kluge to another (if you insist on the alternate spelling
'kludge' feel free to use it.). But it was a blast being there and
watching this thing called Linux find its wings, no?
It is still a blast for me, even if I actually do serious work with
several versions of Linux. And I'm looking forward to spending some
quality time with systemd, of which I know very little, and seeing how I
can make this new tool, which apparently a lot of really smart people
think is a great idea, work for me (and I may find that I despise it;
time will tell). I kind of feel like I've been given a new tool set
with tools I've never seen, and finding out that a screwdriver and a
chisel can actually be separate things! Or finding out what a 'fence
wire' tool can *really* be used for. ( see:
http://www.garrettwade.com/images/330/66A0204.jpg )
And I have two previous versions of CentOS to fall back on while I learn
the new tools; I have both C5 and C6 in production, and have plenty of
time in which to do a proper analysis on the best way ('best way' of
course being subjective; there is no such thing as an entirely objective
'best way') for me to leverage the new tools. The fact of the matter is
that Red Hat would not bet the farm on systemd without substantial
buy-in from a large number of people. The further fact the Debian and
others have come to the same conclusion speaks volumes, whether any
given person thinks it stupid or not. And I don't have enough data to
know whether it's going to work for me or not; I'm definitely not going
to knee-jerk about it, though.
But the rumors of something 'killing' Linux have and will always be
exaggerated. Systemd certainly isn't going to, if gcc 2.96 didn't. I
mean, think about it: the first rev out of gcc 2.96 wouldn't even
compile the Linux kernel, IIRC!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: Remind me why Sure. (a) you think that will be perfect, Nothing is ever perfect, and I didn't use that word. I think it will be, after some bug-wrangling, an improvement for many use cases, but not all. and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to continue its unpredictable behavior. I have had services that would reliably crash under certain reproduceable and consistent circumstances that were relatively harmless otherwise. Restarting the process if certain conditions were met was the documented by the vendor solution. One of those processes was a live audio stream encoder program; occasionally the input sound card would hiccup and the encoder would crash. Restarting the encoder process was both harmless and necessary. While the solution was eventually found years later (driver problems) in the meantime the process restart was the correct method. There are other init packages that do the same thing; it's a feature that many want. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
Lamar Owen wrote: On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: snip and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to continue its unpredictable behavior. I have had services that would reliably crash under certain reproduceable and consistent circumstances that were relatively harmless otherwise. Restarting the process if certain conditions were met was the documented by the vendor solution. One of those processes was a live audio stream encoder program; occasionally the input sound card would hiccup and the encoder would crash. Restarting the encoder process was both harmless and necessary. While the solution was eventually found years later (driver problems) in the meantime the process restart was the correct method. snip On the other hand, restarting can be the *wrong* answer for some things. For example, a bunch of our sites use SiteMinder from CA*. I do *not* restart httpd; I stop it, and wait half a minute or so to make sure sitenanny has shut down correctly and completely, closed all of its sockets, and released all of its IPC semaphores and shared memory segments, and *then* start it up. Otherwise, no happiness. mark * And CA appears to have never heard of selinux, and isn't that great with linux in general ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:56 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: Remind me why Sure. (a) you think that will be perfect, Nothing is ever perfect, and I didn't use that word. I think it will be, after some bug-wrangling, an improvement for many use cases, but not all. and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to continue its unpredictable behavior. I have had services that would reliably crash under certain reproduceable and consistent circumstances that were relatively harmless otherwise. Restarting the process if certain conditions were met was the documented by the vendor solution. One of those processes was a live audio stream encoder program; occasionally the input sound card would hiccup and the encoder would crash. Restarting the encoder process was both harmless and necessary. While the solution was eventually found years later (driver problems) in the meantime the process restart was the correct method. There are other init packages that do the same thing; it's a feature that many want. Since I missed most of the story, can you specify that it is ok for this program to restart whenever it crashes, but this one you will stop restarting after N crashes (N=0) and then report? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 2:00 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Lamar Owen wrote: On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: snip and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to continue its unpredictable behavior. I have had services that would reliably crash under certain reproduceable and consistent circumstances that were relatively harmless otherwise. Restarting the process if certain conditions were met was the documented by the vendor solution. One of those processes was a live audio stream encoder program; occasionally the input sound card would hiccup and the encoder would crash. Restarting the encoder process was both harmless and necessary. While the solution was eventually found years later (driver problems) in the meantime the process restart was the correct method. snip On the other hand, restarting can be the *wrong* answer for some things. For example, a bunch of our sites use SiteMinder from CA*. I do *not* restart httpd; I stop it, and wait half a minute or so to make sure sitenanny has shut down correctly and completely, closed all of its sockets, and released all of its IPC semaphores and shared memory segments, and *then* start it up. Otherwise, no happiness. mark * And CA appears to have never heard of selinux, and isn't that great with linux in general Automatically restarting services is always a bad idea, especially when they are customer facing services. There is nothing worse than a problem that hides behind an automatic restart, especially while it's corrupting data since it's happily starting right back up after dying in the middle of a transaction and potentially creating new transactions that will also terminate when the app crashes again (and it most often will). The least important aspect of a service dying is the state of the service itself, the most important is what has happened to the data when it abended. Restarting the service automatically after failure is a recipe for disaster. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote:
On 07/09/2014 01:31 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
I'm not convinced that being open and receptive to changes from people
that aren't using and appear to not even like the existing, working
system is better than having a single community, all running the same
system because they already like it, and focusing on improving it
while keeping things they like and are currently using.
I think you and I remember a different set of lists. I remember lots of
griping about changes being forced down throats. Heh, a quick perusal
of one of the lists' archives just a minute ago confirmed my recollection.
No, that is exactly my point. Back then the griping by affected
active users happened in more or less real time compared to the
changes being done. Now fedora goes off on its own merry way for
years before its breakage comes back to haunt the people that wanted
stability.
With the latter approach, there was a much better sense of the cost of
breaking things that previously worked.
Do you remember the brouhaha over libc5 that 'just worked' versus the
'changed for no reason' glibc2? And don't get me started on the
recollections over the GNOME 1 to 2 upgrade (or fvwm to GNOME, for that
matter!), or the various KDE upgrades (and the entire lack of KDE for
RHL 5.x due to the odd license for Qt, remember?
Don't think people running a bunch of RH5 servers really cared about X
or desktops at all...
And then
all the i18n changes for 8.0 (I dealt with that one directly, since the
PostgreSQL ANSI C default had to be changed to whatever was now
localized
That one was sort of inevitable. Likewise for grub2 and UEFI...
The bad rep for x.0 releases
started somewhere, remember?
Well, that was the equivalent of fedora. You don't use that in
production. The x.2 release mapped pretty well to 'enterprise'' -
except maybe for 8.x and 9 which never really were very good.
Not that I necessarily disagree with your observations, by the way. I'm
just looking at the brushstrokes of the really big picture and
remembering how at the time it seemed like we sometimes were just moving
from one kluge to another (if you insist on the alternate spelling
'kludge' feel free to use it.). But it was a blast being there and
watching this thing called Linux find its wings, no?
In these observations you have to take into account just how badly
broken the base code was back then. Wade through some old changelogs
if you disagree. There were real reasons that things had to change.
But by, say, CentOS5 or so we had systems that would run indefinitely
we a few security updates now and then. (Actually CentOS3 was pretty
solid, but you have to follow the kernel).
And I have two previous versions of CentOS to fall back on while I learn
the new tools; I have both C5 and C6 in production, and have plenty of
time in which to do a proper analysis on the best way ('best way' of
course being subjective; there is no such thing as an entirely objective
'best way') for me to leverage the new tools. The fact of the matter is
that Red Hat would not bet the farm on systemd without substantial
buy-in from a large number of people. The further fact the Debian and
others have come to the same conclusion speaks volumes, whether any
given person thinks it stupid or not. And I don't have enough data to
know whether it's going to work for me or not; I'm definitely not going
to knee-jerk about it, though.
I'm never against adding new options and features. But I am very
aware of the cost of not making the new version backwards compatible
with anything the old version would have handled. And I'm rarely
convinced that someone who doesn't consider backwards compatibility as
a first priority is going to do so later either, so you are likely
wasting your time learning to work with today's version since
tomorrows will break what you just did.
But the rumors of something 'killing' Linux have and will always be
exaggerated. Systemd certainly isn't going to, if gcc 2.96 didn't. I
mean, think about it: the first rev out of gcc 2.96 wouldn't even
compile the Linux kernel, IIRC!
Yes, but on the other hand, people still pay large sums of money for
other operating systems. And there are some reasons for that.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
It's old but there is still some rumours that freebsd will get Launchd ported from OS X some day On 07/07/2014 10:34 PM, Scott Robbins wrote: On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 02:26:59AM +0100, Always Learning wrote: On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 20:59 -0400, Scott Robbins wrote: To the tune of YMCA So young man, if you want to stick To something, that more resembles Unix And young man, if you want to sing Goodbye to Poettering, (bah bah bah bah) FreBSD (yeah yeah yeah) FreBSD etc. I just made this up at work today, and that's as far as I got. Ah, a Broadway musical next ? :-) I'm an old man who remembers multics, GECOS/GCOS and the 'B' programming language. Is FeeBSD systemd-less ? Got a FreeBSD manual. No systemd in FreeBSD. It isn't Linux, and like any O/S, has its own oddities. It would take more adjustment, IMHO, to go from CentOS 6.x to FreeBSD than to go to 7.x. (I'm saying this as someone who uses both FreeBSD and Fedora which has given a hint of what we'll see in CentOS 7.) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 9.7.2014 22:00, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Lamar Owen wrote: On 07/09/2014 01:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: snip and (b) why you think an unpredictable daemon should be resurrected to continue its unpredictable behavior. I have had services that would reliably crash under certain reproduceable and consistent circumstances that were relatively harmless otherwise. Restarting the process if certain conditions were met was the documented by the vendor solution. One of those processes was a live audio stream encoder program; occasionally the input sound card would hiccup and the encoder would crash. Restarting the encoder process was both harmless and necessary. While the solution was eventually found years later (driver problems) in the meantime the process restart was the correct method. snip On the other hand, restarting can be the *wrong* answer for some things. For example, a bunch of our sites use SiteMinder from CA*. I do *not* restart httpd; I stop it, and wait half a minute or so to make sure sitenanny has shut down correctly and completely, closed all of its sockets, and released all of its IPC semaphores and shared memory segments, and *then* start it up. Otherwise, no happiness. mark * And CA appears to have never heard of selinux, and isn't that great with linux in general My limited understanding you are actually describing problem which systemd should be answer. It should take care of these things for you. Now you wait minute or two which is wrong way of doing it. Right way would be script that actually checks that nothing of the stuff is left around. It's same kind of hack solution that restarting dying service is. Sometimes hack solutions are needed and sometimes not. In my again limited experience with systemd as running Fedora as hobby-server I have gathered that you can decide case by case basis should the process be restarted or not. -vpk ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cemtos 7 : Systemd alternatives ?
On 07/09/2014 03:03 PM, Mauricio Tavares wrote: Since I missed most of the story, can you specify that it is ok for this program to restart whenever it crashes, but this one you will stop restarting after N crashes (N=0) and then report? While I am certainly not an expert with systemd, it appears that you have a more generic mechanism than that in the OnFailure directive in the unit files. So you can basically do any sort of thing on a unit failure, including restart or start a different unit or whatever. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
