On Tuesday 14 June 2016 06:46:32 J. Roeleveld wrote: >On Monday, June 13, 2016 02:10:27 PM James wrote: >> wabe <wabenbau <at> gmail.com> writes: >> Still, if you manage 1000 linux workstations, then systemd does have >> it's merits. > >Serious question: What makes systemd more suitable to manage 1000 linux >workstations when compared to, for instance, OpenRC? > >-- >Joost
Well, since nobody else gave a proper response yet... Not being somebody who manages lots of containers like that, I'm not aware of *all* of the relevant features and how they interact, but one that I can think of is that systemd can communicate with systemd instances running in containers started with systemd-nspawn (e.g., "machinectl status <name>" gives you the status of systemd + services in a container). In fact, systemd-nspawn could probably be seen as such a feature in itself (though personally, when I do use it, it's mainly as chroot on steroids). Oh, and its cgroups management probably helps, that is, I *think* that you can limit resource consumption of containers that way, just like with service units (though I'm not 100% sure of that). In general, my understanding is that systemd provides base features that container management software utilises, and not so much that systemd by itself does container management. Perhaps somebody with more systemd expertise will now feel compelled to respond ;-) . HTH -- Marc Joliet -- "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
