Le dimanche 12 mai 2013 à 19:40 +0200, Helmut Grohne a écrit : > With all due respect, this might be utter bullshit, but is at least > [citation needed]. I have yet to see a failing pid 1 (be that sysv, > upstart or systemd). Acquiring data on failure modes of any of those > systems appears like a difficult task and d-devel might not be the best > place to discuss that.
Having a rock-stable PID 1 is nice and all, but it doesn’t help you if something important crashes. On a production server, if apache crashes and fails to reload properly because the scripts don’t get the ordering right, it doesn’t help you that init is still running fine. It would help you to have an init implementation that can detect which components can be initialized and at what time. We could buy a piece of the argument if systemd was actually prone to crashing, but it is not. Most of the added features lie in other binaries, not in PID 1 itself. Your system is much more likely to crash because of a buggy driver in the kernel than because of the init system. > The problem is not that people disagree on that a good init system is > needed, but about what good comprises. Some people believe that a good > init system should run on all supported architectures including > kfreebsd-*. By this particular metric sysv init still outperforms > systemd. In fact for every combination of init systems you will find a > metric where one outperforms the other. I was all for kfreebsd when it was proposed, but now that it exists and nobody uses it, I am appalled at the idea of using it as an excuse to stop making improvements to the linux ports. Should we stop any migration to a decent networking system because BSD doesn’t support netlink sockets, too? Cheers, -- .''`. Josselin Mouette : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1368396359.13176.22.camel@tomoyo
