On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Felipe, > > On Aug 15, 2012 3:35 AM, "Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> I tried systemd a while ago in a brand new machine with Arch Linux and >> the boot was *much slower*. After some exchanges with Lennart >> Poettering and other people in Google+[1], it became clear I was on my >> own. Eventually I found the culprit: Fedora uses CONFIG_HZ_1000, and >> Arch Linux uses CONFIG_HZ_300. It became clear to me that systemd was >> not ready for prime time, it wasn't thoroughly tested in a lot of >> machines, and if you have problems Lennart Poettering will blame you >> (PulseAudio sounds familiar?). > > Do you have a link to a proper bug report for this issue? I tried reading > the Google+ thread but I couldn't stomach how rude you were in each of your > messages (including the first one) so stopped reading. No, I don't have such report. >> systemd was the reason I stopped using Fedora in the first place; when >> they moved to it my machine stopped booting reliably. My configuration >> was non-standard (a single encrypted partition), so I guess they never >> tested that. Similarly, I expect many Arch Linux users to bite these >> corner-cases. > > Please note that we have waited much longer than Fedora did to make sure > the corner cases have been taken care of. Is this problem still an issue, > or is it just FUD? Link to (current) bug report? I don't have that machine available at the moment, but I don't see how such an issue could have been fixed given the lack of interest from Lennart in that G+ post. I'd say this issue most likely is not fixed, but it's only an example. Just like one this there might be more. >> Finally, it's much harder to debug. If you have a problem you will not >> be able to open a script and figure out what is happening, and perhaps >> modify it, and debug it. You would be greeted with an unmodified >> binary, and the source code would be along these lines: >> >> > http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/remount-fs/remount-fs.c > > As someone who has spent a lot of time debugging both, I much prefer > systemd. I think you are being disingenuous here, surely you don't have a > problem reading C? And I prefer sh. Preferences don't count for much. I do read and write C everyday for probably for more than 10 years now, yet I do have trouble reading systemd's code, but that's not important, what is important is that in order to test my modifications (to add debugging for example), I would need to *recompile*. >> I'm sure in due time systemd will be ready, and will have nice >> advantages, but I doubt that's the case right now. Has anybody looked >> into the CONFIG_HZ issue? I doubt that. > > This is the first I hear of it. I'd be interested to follow up if there is > a proper bug report without unnecessary hostility. Not to my knowledge. >> I was expecting more from the Arch Linux community, something along >> the lines of Google's analysis to pick to mercurial[2], but so far I >> have only seen a couple of people saying +1 in the development mailing >> list, with barely any explanation at all. Such an important move (one >> that might make users' machines stop booting) should warrant at least >> an analysis of some sort, with clear advantages. Would it not? > > We provided systemd optionally for a long time, as you know. Its pros and > cons have been discussed at the various making lists at great length. A > significant portion of our userbase has switched to it, and no serious > issues seem to remain, based on the feedback we have been getting. Each dev > will have had the possibility of trying it, and researching it. They will > have done their own analysis on which the +1s are based. I see no value in > providing an official public analysis. That's not how we work, and it would > not help in the decision making at this point. Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me a skeptic. > That's not to say that an analysis would not be an interesting read, and > I'm sure people like Allan our Jason will provide some excellent blog posts > about this at some point. One can only hope. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
