On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:01:41PM +, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Didier Kryn writes:
> > Le 10/11/2015 01:01, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
>
> [...]
>
> >> I used chrony as my NTP client. If the discrepancy between local time
> >> on the machine and the correct time, it just gave up. I/m not sure
Le 10/11/2015 18:01, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 10/11/2015 01:01, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
[...]
I used chrony as my NTP client. If the discrepancy between local time
on the machine and the correct time, it just gave up. I/m not sure at
what discrepancy this happened, b
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 10/11/2015 01:01, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
[...]
>> I used chrony as my NTP client. If the discrepancy between local time
>> on the machine and the correct time, it just gave up. I/m not sure at
>> what discrepancy this happened, but it helped a lot to explicitly set
>>
Le 10/11/2015 01:01, Hendrik Boom a écrit :
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 09:57:48PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
Le 09/11/2015 20:12, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
After booting, the discrepancy between the RTC clock and the actual time
is unknown.
I remember having had a problem with two servers whe
On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 09:57:48PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 09/11/2015 20:12, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> >After booting, the discrepancy between the RTC clock and the actual time
> >is unknown.
> I remember having had a problem with two servers when the time
> discrepency reached 5mn (It
Le 09/11/2015 20:12, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
After booting, the discrepancy between the RTC clock and the actual time
is unknown.
I remember having had a problem with two servers when the time
discrepency reached 5mn (It was for kerberos authentication). We
discovered that one of the two
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 09/11/2015 15:58, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
> Maybe you never shutdown, but some, like me, prefer to put their
> laptop back in a well-know state from time to time.
Indeed, I do reboot from time to time. Sometimes it's be
Le 09/11/2015 15:58, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
[...]
Maybe you never shutdown, but some, like me, prefer to put their
laptop back in a well-know state from time to time.
Indeed, I do reboot from time to time. Sometimes it's because I
didn't keep an eye on battery state -
Didier Kryn writes:
[...]
>>> Maybe you never shutdown, but some, like me, prefer to put their
>>> laptop back in a well-know state from time to time.
>>
>> Indeed, I do reboot from time to time. Sometimes it's because I
>> didn't keep an eye on battery state - it's getting towards the end of
>>
Le 09/11/2015 13:56, Simon Hobson a écrit :
Didier Kryn wrote:
Why the hell did they invent suspend-to-disk?
I take it you don't like the idea ?
No. I don't dislike the idea. I admit it is brillant.
I'm confused then - but that's not hard !
This leads to the conclusion: boot time doesn't
Didier Kryn wrote:
>>> Why the hell did they invent suspend-to-disk?
>> I take it you don't like the idea ?
> No. I don't dislike the idea. I admit it is brillant.
I'm confused then - but that's not hard !
> This leads to the conclusion: boot time doesn't matter if you never shut
> down, bu
Le 08/11/2015 19:51, Simon Hobson a écrit :
Didier Kryn wrote:
Why the hell did they invent suspend-to-disk?
I take it you don't like the idea ?
My only laptop is OS X, and I tend to leave so much open (text files of
temporary notes, a gazzillion web pages/tabs, mail (home), mail (work), an
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Why the hell did they invent suspend-to-disk?
I take it you don't like the idea ?
My only laptop is OS X, and I tend to leave so much open (text files of
temporary notes, a gazzillion web pages/tabs, mail (home), mail (work), and a
few others. To boot takes several minute
On Sat, 07 Nov 2015 21:29:47 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 07/11/2015 15:26, Steve Litt a écrit :
> > for the vast majority of us the difference
> > between a 1 second boot and a 40 second boot is we get a chance to
> > go get a cup of coffee every day, week, month, year, whatever. And
> > frankl
On 11/7/15 12:47 PM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Miles Fidelman writes:
Not for nothing, but if you're coordinating distributed servers, your
system design is WAY too closely coupled if boot time effects anything.
Boot time is just a kind of downtime. If downtime lasts too long, the
health chec
Le 07/11/2015 15:26, Steve Litt a écrit :
for the vast majority of us the difference
between a 1 second boot and a 40 second boot is we get a chance to go
get a cup of coffee every day, week, month, year, whatever. And
frankly, it's been a long time since I've seen any system that takes
more than
Miles Fidelman writes:
Not for nothing, but if you're coordinating distributed
servers, your system design is WAY too closely coupled if boot
time effects anything.
Boot time is just a kind of downtime. If downtime lasts too long, the
health checks declare nodes bad and expensive recovery sta
Arnt Gulbrandsen writes:
> Steve Litt writes:
>> I'd like to discuss this. Now, after a year of thought, I still see no
>> benefit to "starting servers in parallel" except for boot time.
>
> Because you're thinking of the happy path.
>
> Suppose you have a few dozen servers on three continents, pr
On 11/7/15 10:04 AM, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
Steve Litt writes:
I'd like to discuss this. Now, after a year of thought, I still see no
benefit to "starting servers in parallel" except for boot time.
Because you're thinking of the happy path.
Suppose you have a few dozen servers on three conti
On 11/7/15 9:26 AM, Steve Litt wrote:
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:05:23 +
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Worrying about 'starting servers in parallell' only makes sense if
there's a real-world situation where this demonstrably makes a
relevant difference. And I very much doubt that --- that's just
an
Steve Litt writes:
I'd like to discuss this. Now, after a year of thought, I still see no
benefit to "starting servers in parallel" except for boot time.
Because you're thinking of the happy path.
Suppose you have a few dozen servers on three continents, providing a
user-facing service, using
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 19:05:23 +
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Worrying about 'starting servers in parallell' only makes sense if
> there's a real-world situation where this demonstrably makes a
> relevant difference. And I very much doubt that --- that's just
> another imaginary sugar-coating suppo
Le 06/11/2015 18:28, Simon Hobson a écrit :
I've done no measurements, but my "gut feeling" is that for the servers I
manage (and my OS X laptop), the limiting factor is disk I/O. Thus parallelising service
startup won't help much (if at all) because it just means all the services fire up and
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 09:02:53PM +0200, Aldemir Akpinar wrote:
> I rarely boot my servers maybe one or two servers in week or so, and if your
> running a server grade hardware, it takes forever to boot. My laptop, I just
> get it to sleep.
Indeed, production servers here are mostly IBM System X
On 6 November 2015 at 00:14, Didier Kryn wrote:
>
>
> Jokes apart, starting daemons in parallel is simply faster when you
> have several cores. I do care booting fast.
>
> Didier
>
>
Guys, seriously, how many times do you boot your computers in a day, 10?
20? 50? If it is that much, then
On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 05:43:43PM +, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Simon Hobson writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Besides, (on bare metal) there's all that BIOS stuff that happens
> > before the OS even gets a look-in - I sometimes wonder if Dell and HP
> > have a competition on how long they can make thi
Simon Hobson writes:
[...]
> Besides, (on bare metal) there's all that BIOS stuff that happens
> before the OS even gets a look-in - I sometimes wonder if Dell and HP
> have a competition on how long they can make this process !
That may (in absence of "hardware RAID") be simply to fix: Disable
Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> ... but the conclusion is "Whoever believes parallelization beyond starpar
> will improve 'booting speed' for this machine is sadly mistaken".
I've done no measurements, but my "gut feeling" is that for the servers I
manage (and my OS X laptop), the limiting factor is
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 05/11/2015 20:05, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
[...]
>> Worrying about 'starting servers in parallell' only makes sense if
>> there's a real-world situation where this demonstrably makes a relevant
>> difference.
[...]
> Jokes apart, starting daemons in parallel is si
Le 05/11/2015 20:05, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
Le 03/11/2015 17:24, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
I agree with you, and it was the first point in my mail, that the
servers should be able to cope with outages.
That's not a matter of "should": They ha
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 03/11/2015 17:24, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>>>
>>> I agree with you, and it was the first point in my mail, that the
>>> servers should be able to cope with outages.
>> That's not a matter of "should": They have to. Even if it's believed
>> th
Le 03/11/2015 17:24, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
I agree with you, and it was the first point in my mail, that the
servers should be able to cope with outages.
That's not a matter of "should": They have to. Even if it's believed
they're just using local IPC[*].
Ye
Steve Litt writes:
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:18:07 +0100
> Didier Kryn wrote:
>> Le 02/11/2015 15:53, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> > Didier Kryn writes:
>> >
>> > [...]
>> >
>> >> Reporting readyness is admin-friendly, but this can be done
>> >> trivially, in the s6 fashion; it does not take
On Tue, 03 Nov 2015 16:18:07 +0100
Didier Kryn wrote:
> Le 02/11/2015 15:53, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
> > Didier Kryn writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> Reporting readyness is admin-friendly, but this can be done
> >> trivially, in the s6 fashion; it does not take a library to do.
> > https://
Didier Kryn writes:
> Le 02/11/2015 15:53, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
>> Didier Kryn writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Reporting readyness is admin-friendly, but this can be done
>>> trivially, in the s6 fashion; it does not take a library to do.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_check_to_tim
Le 02/11/2015 15:53, Rainer Weikusat a écrit :
Didier Kryn writes:
[...]
Reporting readyness is admin-friendly, but this can be done
trivially, in the s6 fashion; it does not take a library to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_check_to_time_of_use
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/defi
Didier Kryn writes:
[...]
> Reporting readyness is admin-friendly, but this can be done
> trivially, in the s6 fashion; it does not take a library to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_of_check_to_time_of_use
https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/367.html
https://isecpartners.github.io
Le 02/11/2015 03:31, Go Linux a écrit :
I thought some of you might be interested in this post about the article posted
below:
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?p=597967#p597967
I couldn't begin to understand the original treatise but could kind of follow
what tomazzi was saying. Any th
linux
On Fri, 10/16/15, richard white wrote:
Subject: [DNG] Detailed technical treatise of systemd
To: "dng"
Date: Friday, October 16, 2015, 10:38 AM
All,
A detailed technical treatise of systemd
http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10
Rainer Weikusat:
...
> But "avoid writing parsers where feasible" is IMHO a sound piece
> of advice. Eg, in case some sort of 'config file format' is needed, it's
> often possible to get by by writing a set of
>
> variable=value
>
> statements in Bourne shell syntax and replace the 'start the pro
Jonathan Wilkes writes:
> I cannot for the life of me understand the quote from djb starting,
> "Don't parse." What is it he doesn't like, and how does his text0
> format keep him from doing what he doesn't like?
I can only speculate about the reasons but 'parsing', especially in the
sense it is
Le 16/10/2015 21:23, Neo Futur a écrit :
I pretty much stopped reading after the following line in the
>composition:
>==
>Fourthly, I will only be dealing with systemd the service manager (of
>which the init is an intracomponent subset, and also
Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
> I cannot for the life of me understand the quote from djb starting, "Don't
> parse."
>
> What is it he doesn't like, and how does his text0 format keep him from doing
> what he doesn't like?
How I read it was ...
Don't have a program you want to be controlled by anoth
On 16/10/2015 23:09, Neo Futur wrote:
A couple days back, I was playing with Trinity on a PCLinuxOS live CD.
Starting the applications **from the CD** was faster than doing the same
from a KDE4 desktop *from an SSD*. At the time, I recall GNOME2 and KDE3
being slower than their earlier incarnati
> A couple days back, I was playing with Trinity on a PCLinuxOS live CD.
> Starting the applications **from the CD** was faster than doing the same
> from a KDE4 desktop *from an SSD*. At the time, I recall GNOME2 and KDE3
> being slower than their earlier incarnations, but the sheer bloat and
> i
On 16/10/2015 20:39, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
Neo Futur writes:
I pretty much stopped reading after the following line in the
composition:
==
Fourthly, I will only be dealing with systemd the service manager (of
which the init is an intracompone
>> Same here, if systemd was just an init system, i d probably still
>> avoid it and fight it, but the main problem is that its much more than
>> that, eating everything around it (
>> http://neofutur.net/local/cache-vignettes/L200xH133/arton19-b28db.gif
>> ), and that is the main problem, for sur
> If systemd had been just another init system, replacible by any other
> init system, I probably would have thought nothing about it. The vast
> majority of the problem is its complete fencing off of the underlying
> OS.
>
I whole heartily concur.
I barely even thought of init systems before syst
Neo Futur writes:
>> I pretty much stopped reading after the following line in the
>> composition:
>>==
>> Fourthly, I will only be dealing with systemd the service manager (of
>> which the init is an intracomponent subset, and also contains seve
> I pretty much stopped reading after the following line in the
> composition:
>==
> Fourthly, I will only be dealing with systemd the service manager (of
> which the init is an intracomponent subset, and also contains several
> other internal sub
On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:38:14 -0400
richard white wrote:
> All,
>
> A detailed technical treatise of systemd
> http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
>
> -Rich
Hi Rich,
First, this is the guy who early on made the "uselessd" supposed
knockoff of the Init part of systemd, so he know
richard white writes:
> A detailed technical treatise of systemd
> http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
A little bit off topic in the given context but something I feel like
mentioning as 'data point' for our friends from "my laptop's my castle"
front: A certain real-world system I
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:38:14AM -0400, richard white wrote:
> All,
>
> A detailed technical treatise of systemd
> http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
>
> -Rich
There's some discussion of this taking place at Soylent News:
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/10/15/1347246
Meh. I enjoy the beautiful simplicity and stability of Devuan Alpha 2. I
hope it only gets better. It is how Linux is meant to be.
Go Devuan!!
On 10/16/2015 10:38 AM, richard white wrote:
All,
A detailed technical treatise of systemd
http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
-Rich
All,
A detailed technical treatise of systemd
http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
-Rich
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
55 matches
Mail list logo
