On 28/03/2013 04:56, Michael Mol wrote: > On 03/27/2013 05:51 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> On 27/03/2013 22:41, Michael Mol wrote: >>> The case for systemd is twofold: >> >> ... >> >>> 2) Reduce the amount of CPU and RAM consumed when you're talking about >>> booting tens of thousands of instances simultaneously across your entire >>> infrastructure, or when your server instance might be spun up and down >>> six times over the course of a single day. >> >> I seems to me that this is rather a niche quite-specialized case (albeit >> a rather large instance of a niche case). In which case it would be >> better implemented as Redhat MagicSauce for their cloud environment >> where it would be exactly tuned to that case's need. > > But it's a great deal cheaper to convince volunteers and package > maintainers to put in the time to build the necessary service files of > their own accord. Add in the complexity of parallel boot, and you can > induce upstream to fix their own race-driven bugs rather than have to > pay for that development directly. >
I don't follow the thought stream here Michael. It feels like there's a word or a sentence missing (it's just not hanging together) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
