On 1/25/21 5:50 PM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 11:31:08PM +0000, Miles ONeal wrote:
| For me, the issues are not policital, but technical:
Agreed. One of mine is that the surety of being able to drop a lower runlevel
and back up is gone. ...
If you ask me, systemd was designed and built to solve one and only one problem,
boot it's author's personal 1 core 300 MHz laptop as fast as possible. Today,
with 4 core 3000 MHz laptops and 16 core 4000 MHz "servers", many features
of systemd look quaint. ("waiting for USB devices to settle", really?).
Benchmarks that report "old" and "slow" SysV initscripts boot as fast as systemd
tend to support this viewpoint.
Each time I look at the systemd boot sequence trace, I see things like
"waiting 10 sec for disks that are not needed for booting" and
"waiting 10 sec for network not needed for booting". If unlucky, also see
"waiting forever for disk that failed and was removed" (hello, booting from
degraded btrfs raid array).
How this stuff got into "E" linux and why paying customers put up with this,
is a mystery to me. Perhaps said paying customers "never reboot" and never
see systemd shortcomings (and get no benefit from "systemd fast booting").
As I mentioned before, there's a lot more to systemd then what the user
sees or cares about. Most people don't care about fast boot and I rarely
boot my servers. Yet, I do rely on a lot of things in systemd (see
previous email about dealing with stuck NVidia GPU's).
It's not that I don't see systemd shortcomings. It has some. But so did
SysV and the old init.
Again, it's just a tool. How it is used and if it is used well is up to
the one who needs to use it. :-)
~Stack~
