Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 06:43:04AM +, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: > > Really? No journal messages are getting created at all? No users logging > > in/out? What does strace show on those processes? > > Yes, messages are created - but I'm not interested in them. Maybe a > user logs in for a

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On 08/06/16 03:04, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: >> What processes are showing up in your count? Perhaps it's just a bug that >> needs to be fixed. > /bin/dbus-daemon > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-journald > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-logind dbus-daemon will wake up when there are D-Bus messages to be

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On 06/08/2016 06:51 AM, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: Thanks for this and the other suggestions! So for starters we’ll disable logind and dbus, increase watchdogsec and see where the footprint is – before disabling journald if necessary in a next step. You cannot disable journal but you

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On Tue, 07.06.16 21:00, Greg KH (gre...@linuxfoundation.org) wrote: > On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:04:48AM +, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: > > > What processes are showing up in your count? Perhaps it's just a > > > bug that needs to be fixed. > > /bin/dbus-daemon > >

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On Tue, 07.06.16 22:17, Hebenstreit, Michael (michael.hebenstr...@intel.com) wrote: > Thanks for the answers > > > Well, there's no tracking of sessions anymore, i.e. polkit and all that > > stuff won't work anymore reasonably, and everything else that involves > > anything graphical and so

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

, 2016 11:35 AM To: Hebenstreit, Michael Cc: Systemd Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case This sounds like you could start by unsetting WatchdogSec= for those daemons. Other than the watchdog, they shouldn't be using any CPU unless explicitly contacted. On Wed, Jun 8

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

el Cc: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson; Lennart Poettering; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:04:48AM +, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: > > What processes are showing up in your count? Perhaps it's just

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

> From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [mailto:johan...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 6:10 AM > To: Hebenstreit, Michael; Lennart Poettering > Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case > > On 06/07/2016 10:1

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 7:04 PM, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: >> That what "most" other system designers in your situation do :) > Unfortunately I cannot reserve a CPU for OS - I'd like to, but the app > developers insist to use all 254 cores available Tough

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On Wed, Jun 08, 2016 at 02:04:48AM +, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: > > What processes are showing up in your count? Perhaps it's just a > > bug that needs to be fixed. > /bin/dbus-daemon > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-journald > /usr/lib/systemd/systemd-logind > > I understand from the previous

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

n RH7 kernel -Original Message- From: Greg KH [mailto:gre...@linuxfoundation.org] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2016 8:54 AM To: Hebenstreit, Michael Cc: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson; Lennart Poettering; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] question on special config

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 11:50:36PM +, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: > The base system is actually pretty large (currently 1200 packages) - I > hate that myself. Still performance wise the packages are not the > issue. The SSDs used can easily handle that, and library loads are > only happening

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

une 08, 2016 6:10 AM To: Hebenstreit, Michael; Lennart Poettering Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case On 06/07/2016 10:17 PM, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: > I understand this usage model cannot be compared to laptops or web >

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On 06/07/2016 10:17 PM, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: I understand this usage model cannot be compared to laptops or web servers. But basically you are saying systemd is not usable for our High Performance Computing usage case and I might better off by replacing it with sysinitV. I was hoping

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

gards Michael -Original Message- From: Lennart Poettering [mailto:lenn...@poettering.net] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2016 11:23 PM To: Hebenstreit, Michael Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Subject: Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case On Tue, 07.06.16 15:13, Heb

Re: [systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

On 06/07/2016 03:13 PM, Hebenstreit, Michael wrote: we need to keep the OS of our systems are stripped down to an absolute bare minimum. If you need absolute bare minimum systemd [¹] then you need to create/maintain your entire distribution for that ( for example you would build systemd

[systemd-devel] question on special configuration case

Sorry for directing this question here, but I did not find any mailing list that would be a better fit. Problem: I'm running an HPC benchmarking cluster. We are evaluating RH7/CentOS7/OL7 and have a problem with system noise generated by the systemd components (v 219-19.0.2, see below).