On Fri, 10.06.11 15:07, Denys Vlasenko (dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Hi Lennart, > > systemd is eating a lot more memory than any other init process > I ever played with. > > Granted, systemd does a bit more that "typical" init, but I think > using *eleven plus megabytes* of malloced space is a bit much. As pointed out elsewhere, this is mostly the SELinux policy, and definitely something we can optimize in one way or another. > I understand your desire to replace everything by systemd. I have no such desire. > I really do. syslogd, klogd, mount, fsck, and a dozen other things We don't replace syslogd, klogd, mount, fsck and dozen of other things. > Now I hear about plans to incorporate ConsoleKit into it > (hearsay, so maybe it's not true). Yes, systemd as a platform will include a tiny daemon which takes over the role of CK. > Why does systemd link against libpam? > systemd does logins now, not /bin/login or gdm or ...? > libattr? Does it mean it requires filesystem which implements > extended attributes? If not, why does it use libattr then? > libaudit? What systemd has in common with audit? Michal already answered these questions, so I am not going to repeat this here. > libwrap? systemd is a network application now too? Yupp, Google for "socket activation systemd". > libdbus?... this is a lost battle I guess... Yupp, since Upstart used that already since ages. > I propose to stop for a second and optimize systemd down > instead of trying to add even more bells and whistles to it. > Or else you'll soon end up linking against every /lib/lib*.so* I think systemd is much more optimized that what existed previously. (what else is parallelization but optimization?) I bet with you that a systemd system (modulo SELinux) can be built in a way that uses much less resources and boot time than one built on Upstart. (How? We simply spawn shell (or even zero) shells and other interpretors, and start a number of seldom-things only when needed and the rest in parallel). > It is an *init replacement*, not the replacement for everything. I like to see it as a modular platform to build an OS from. It includes an init system and a few auxiliary tools (readahead for example, and C implementations of the basic boot scripts). > Every new feature you add and library you link against > works against that goal. Nah, don't think so. We have fewer deps, and less dependencies than the equivalent Upstart- and shell based boot. It is my intention to minimize the minimum set of packages you need to bootstrap a Linux system. While the systemd package might get a bit bigger than sysvinit through that -- *overall* you get a much smaller and simpler system, build from a much smaller number of source packages. That saves resources, makes things simpler and faster. > To be honest, I doubt the wisdom of implementing service manager > as an init process. There is no inherent reason why it has to be init - > you can run it as *a child of init*, and keep init very simple. No, that would complicate things for little reason. I find a system whose PID after boot is in the 500 range much simpler and leaner than one that is in the 5000 range. > Then, if service manager would crash, at least it doesn't > take system down with it... If systemd crashes it will freeze, but not take the system down. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
