On 03/06/2017 10:00 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
Please do not tell me that I want to write a unit file when the
*entire* ecosystem takes command lines just fine. I have hundreds of
dockerfiles that have entry points - why do I need to write unit files
for them? I have command line tools that generate docker images...
with command lines - why would I want to write unit files for them?
Interesting use case. Nothing I have ever heard form a developer. I
think we are "in" the bubble. You are one of the smartest programmers,
and one of the largest contributors to Kubernetes. There is zero chance
that our customers will want to rewrite all of their services from
scratch. I mean, maybe 15 years from now.
I am not arguing against you using it, I am arguing against us packing
more stuff in RHEL and confusing the not as smart people...
Also, dumb-init is not an init system. It's a signal proxy.
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Scott McCarty <smcca...@redhat.com
<mailto:smcca...@redhat.com>> wrote:
I am skeptical of any "resource" argument against systemd. Are you
seeing some actually impact to performance that is causing
problems? As for unit files, they are rediculously easy. Much
easier than figuring out how to start a daemon properly by reading
documentation.
I don't have a strong opinion for CentOS/Fedora. But for RHEL, I
think multiple init systems will just generate more technical
questions from customers and eat up more sales resources
explaining when people should use what. Options are great, but
confusing, that's why Apple got rid of a lot of them...
On 03/06/2017 09:48 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
Zero overhead, defunct process management, proper logging,
simplicity, no moving parts, no additional unit file (I don't
have unit files).
Turn it around - if I have the command line "ansible-playbook
...", what does systemd get me?
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Eric Paris <epa...@redhat.com
<mailto:epa...@redhat.com> <mailto:epa...@redhat.com
<mailto:epa...@redhat.com>>> wrote:
On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 21:22 -0500, Clayton Coleman wrote:
> They'd be really helpful for cases where you don't want
full blown
> systemd, but want a long running container that needs to
reap
> processes. I don't know that one or the other matters,
I have a
> slight bias for dumb-init in terms of signal rewriting
(a few cases
> might need that).
>
> Anyone using these today?
What does dumb-init or tini get me that systemd doesn't?
--
Scott McCarty, RHCA
Technical Product Marketing: Containers
Email: smcca...@redhat.com <mailto:smcca...@redhat.com>
Phone: 312-660-3535 <tel:312-660-3535>
Cell: 330-807-1043 <tel:330-807-1043>
Web: http://crunchtools.com
When should you split your application into multiple containers?
http://red.ht/22xKw9i
--
Scott McCarty, RHCA
Technical Product Marketing: Containers
Email: smcca...@redhat.com
Phone: 312-660-3535
Cell: 330-807-1043
Web: http://crunchtools.com
When should you split your application into multiple containers?
http://red.ht/22xKw9i
