|
Suspicious Dish posted:systemd's PID1 isn't monolithic and systemd is a set of co-operating executables (I restart journald and logind all the time during development, without taking down PID1). Keep the systemd unit file format, but split pid1 into the following chunks: one chunk (pid1) to wait() for everything that dies and do nothing else one chunk ("rc") to launch everything in a directory one chunk to spawn a child and pipe its stdout to some sort of logging service one chunk to do what runit does: spawn a child and listen on a control pipe in /run that allows the admin to start/stop/reload the service, restart it if it dies but don't restart it if it dies too often. configure these using something declarative like a systemd unit file. make it create a cgroup, if you like one chunk that is very simple and starts up rapidly that just listens on a socket or dbus name. when the first connection is received, spawn a child according to a declarative config file (again, unit file if you like) and hand off the fd using the systemd socket activation protocol boom, modular co-operating processes that do everything that systemd does, and pid1 itself is like 20 lines of code because all it has to do is call wait() in a loop. so why not just structure systemd this way? systemd pid1 is extremely monolithic by comparison, the only justification i can find for that design is that aforementioned document that says "no really, one master process does actually need a 10,000 foot view of the entire cgroup hierarchy otherwise that hierarchy cannot be effectively managed". if you accept that then yeah the systemd pid1zilla is an acceptable logical outcome of that conclusion, seeing as cgroups are kind of systemd's thing and all. i'm not saying i don't accept it, i'm saying i'd like to see a much more precise justification than the handwaving they give.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2025 11:30 |
|
|
mrdog was right
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
My answer depends on your answer to this question: what's the end goal of splitting the processes up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
I installed linux on my desktop. How do I shell? What does code:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
or just use supervisord
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:13
|
|
|
keyvin posted:I installed linux on my desktop. How do I shell? What does ask forkbomb i think she knows what that does, idk personally
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:one chunk to wait
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:My answer depends on your answer to this question: what's the end goal of splitting the processes up? so my system isn't unusable when pid 1 segfaults (this happened to me last week. segfault on boot. why? i have no idea.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
where we're going we dont need init systems (docker lol)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
did anybody use lunix on the desktop yet itt
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:19
|
|
|
theadder posted:did anybody use lunix on the desktop yet itt I did. It has everything I need to do my computing like I did in 1998. Except for a paging file.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
keyvin posted:I did. It has everything I need to do my computing like I did in 1998. also known as, everything i need to do my computing, ever not much has changed since 1998, my hardware has just gotten better. my environment would be substantially familiar to someone from 1988.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
pram posted:where we're going we dont need init systems (docker lol) docker is the new thing i guess
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
I'd take a screen shot to show you guys but I read ten guides on how to do it, they were all different, and none of them worked.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
same as the old thing
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:My answer depends on your answer to this question: what's the end goal of splitting the processes up? make it easier to replace bits and pieces of them 10 years down the line with whatever the latest hotness is that year. tef dropped some serious loving wisdom in the pl thread that i think went tragically under-appreciated, which can be paraphrased as "don't design your software so that bits of it are easily re-usable, design your software so that bits of it are easily thrown away" for example, if some other fashionable kernel supervision primitive comes along to replace cgroups, then in the fractured picture i painted above you only have to replace one chunk (the "runit+cgroups" chunk, which is still admittedly a fairly large chunk). but cgroups thread the core of systemd's being, you'd have to completely burn it to the ground and start anew before you can replace them with something better, and in the meantime people will say "well what's the big deal? systemd and cgroups have worked for me just fine for the last 10 years, and these scenarios you're presenting that expose cracks in the design and deficiencies in the model are just contrived edge cases that i can discount as not actually mattering in practice because *faaaaaaaaaart*, the design is actually perfect and cannot be improved upon in any way. ......... ok fine it's not perfect but it's like 90% perfect and fixing it isn't worth the hassle, don't fix what ain't broken" and drag their heels and propose frivolous General Resolutions for a tediously long time. which is exactly what happened when systemd fought its bloody war of succession against upstart. and in ten years' time we're going to do it again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:replace bits and pieces
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
theres nothing wrong with a loose collection of bash and perl scripts to start and stop everything ok
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
 I finally figured it out guys. xwd -root | convert - shot.png in this black box with text took the screen shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
i have heard there is a "print screen" button on the keyboard OP
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:36
|
|
|
wow, desktop linnux. still looking horrific
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
it could be worse, it could look like windows
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
pseudorandom name posted:it could be worse, it could look like OSX
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
keyvin posted:
lol 5
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
im the giant clock icons with black backgrounds lol iceweasel fluffypony.nl irc
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
pram posted:theres nothing wrong with a loose collection of bash and perl scripts to start and stop everything ok smf is the answer
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
this is incredible
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
does lvm still do that thing where if you create a raid with one version, then upgrade your lvm, it breaks the raid and you lose all your data? also linux stymie you are wrong zfs owns the most
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
it does feel like stepping into some kind of time warp where someone from 2003 is browsing the web and chatting about ponies
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
im the pizza cutter
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 02:57
|
|
|
Notorious b.s.d. posted:also known as, everything i need to do my computing, ever this is why your opinions on desktop linux in 2014 are lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
whats up with the netflix man. i did all that pipelight stuff, changed browser UA, no worko. IDK brosephiroth. do i need make a VM ?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p8Prlu3owc
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Smythe posted:whats up with the netflix man. i did all that pipelight stuff, changed browser UA, no worko. IDK brosephiroth. do i need make a VM ? works for me natively in chrome with the changed ua. edit: dev chrome iirc
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
it works in normal chrome with no extensions or UA hackery or any effort whatsoever
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:40
|
|
|
YOU DARE INTRODUCE HOARD-WARE INTO A PRISTINE GNU/LINUX DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
keyvin posted:
use scrotum
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
IPvSH6T posted:works for me natively in chrome with the changed ua. pseudorandom name posted:it works in normal chrome with no extensions or UA hackery or any effort whatsoever hmm. thnx
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
why not use launchd? also does Linux support posix_spawn yet? how about fast non-copying secure IPC?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jan 22, 2025 11:30 |
|
|
eschaton posted:why not use launchd? because linux is always playing catch-up to the worlds most advanced operating system
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 06:00
|
|