On 10/21/2016 01:17 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > On 10/21/2016 01:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 01:03:58PM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote: >>> I like Dan's proposal of rhel7-init (or fedora-init, centos-init). >> For whatever it's worth, I don't. It makes sense if you're steeped in >> the distro world where init systems have been a hot topic for the last >> few years, but without that context it sounds like it's something about >> inititalizing RHEL/Fedora/CentOS, not that there's a process manager >> running. Or even an initial attempt at making a rhel7 container. >> > Do you prefer > rhel7-systemd, fedora-systemd, centos-systemd > or > rhel7-system, fedora-system, centos-system > > Or don't like the idea at all?
Given that we already get flak ... which leads to reduced adoption ... of our base images due to their large size, this seems like the wrong direction to move into. Systemd and its dependencies are quite large, sometimes larger than everything else in the container combined, both in storage space and in memory footprint. If we want to push the idea of having systemd inside containers, then we need a new tiny version of systemd designed for containers. And by "tiny" I mean "less than 10MB, with few or no dependancies which are liable to create extra update churn". A tiny systemd would be a great selling point. We'd have integrated journaling, more sophisticated PID1 scripts, zombie harvesting, etc. Those things are benefits to the developer, and we could promote them. But nobody's going to buy those at the cost of 100MB+ of bloat. -- -- Josh Berkus Project Atomic Red Hat OSAS
