Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:The problem... (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#48006255) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

And this is why every sysadmin hates your cabal: It feels like the evil empire taking over. "Don't resist, and it will hurt less."

But we will resist. Go to hell.

If you don't like systemd, don't work with Linux as a professional SA. Like or not, systemd is the new way of dealing with Linux for all the major commercial Linux distros. This is just stating the basic facts, not a threat, not gloating; people will just have to deal with the reality of things, and systemd have been a reality coming for a long time.

Yes, some are getting frustrated by eg. CentOS. But that sad fact is, that so many Linux SA's doesn't even have a basic grasp of systemd, having made no serious study of it, or even worked with it on early systemd distros like Fedora. So SA's are deploying systemd Linux distros now without any real experience with systemd, nor having spend eg. at least +20 hours with the extensive documentation, despite the obvious fact that systemd was coming to town.
SA experience is a help, but it is no substitute for actually studying how systemd works and how to debug with it.

It is so easy to blame systemd for all new problems, and no one seems to blame themselves for not doing their homework properly before using it.
It is so convenient not having to study systemd because it is "bad"/made by the evil empire/the cause of all problems/is just like windows/not the Unix way/ and what not.

Resist all you want, I and the rest of the world don't care about your heroic abstaining of using a new init system; Just deal with the consequences of your choices if you are ejected out of the IT industry for lacking needed skills; I have seen it so many times during the last 3 decades; every time the IT industry shifted, some blamed the progress for being bad and refused to learn anything new. They all had mighty principles for why new stuff was bad, and they would all rant endlessly about old ways were better than the new ways, and when forced to deal with new stuff, they would blame the technology, not their lacking skills for all the problems they encountered. Don't be one of them.

Comment: Re:min install (Score 0) 221

by Peter H.S. (#47978071) Attached to: Outlining Thin Linux

Everything that exists to deal with things that happen because an inexperienced GUI user might do something stupid (like manually change the system time).

Last I used systemd (Fedora), the dependency tree for packages is such that packages like NetworkManager are required by systemd. Do a minimal CentOS 7 install and see just how many packages you can remove from the system without having systemd be removed because of dependencies. Then, look at the list of remaining packages and you'd have to be a complete liar to tell us that none of them are GUI-centric.

That has nothing to do with systemd, but is about how Fedora or CentOS choose to make their distro. And you are right that they often make too many things interdependent, even Fedora have been aware of this for some time. This is what is all about; being able to have a really small core, and then add blocks as needed, with different designs and dependencies for Workstation and Server editions. That work will carry over in RHEL and CentOS in the future.

But it is trivial to let systemd be a part of the really small base core of the OS, so it is not to blame for pulling in many packages, and it certainly doesn't have any inherent need for pulling in GUI packages.

Comment: Re:min install (Score 0) 221

by Peter H.S. (#47973901) Attached to: Outlining Thin Linux

But, with systemd dragging in a bunch of packages that many would consider to be only truly useful when a GUI is installed, the actual footprint is probably larger.

On that same note, perhaps there is a "systemd way" to do what you are trying to do with ifconfig or lspci?

What packages are you talking about? Are you sure you don't just speculate that it must be so because you don't know anything about systemd?

systemd has superb CLI functionality with everything having bash-completion. Try "systemctl --(tab)" and all CLI options will appear. systemctl stat(tab) kd(tab) (systemctl status kdm.service). There is tab completion for every service running.
  Or "journalctl _T(tab)k(tab)" (journalctl _TRANSPORT=kernel). There is tab completion for every field in the journal.

The systemd tools are simply pure joy to use from the command line.

Remember, that systemd can replace several other programs like cron, at, syslog, sNTP, dhcp-cleints, etc. so its foot print is quite small, even with all features included.

And since systemd is made to run on embedded devices, it can be configured at compile time to be extremely small. It is trivial for the distro maintainers to exactly control all the systemd defaults and all options it provides, so they can tailor it exactly for their need, including to remove most of its features.

Comment: Re:Yes, pipelined utilities, like the logs (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47960895) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Yeah, more functionality that I don't want or need. A binary log system is beyond stupid. It is Microsoft registry levels of stupid.

What a lame non-technical argument. Well, the truth probably is that you actually haven't studied journald's logging features, and are relying on some ranting anti-linux hate blog on how someone _thinks_ it work.

The brutal technical truth is, that systemd's way of logging is always an improvement over the old legacy syslog way of doing things.

There is nothing that can be with unstructured text dumps that can't be done with journald's structured and indexed journal. But here are a huge amount of things that can be done with the journal, that are outright impossible to do with syslog text logs.

You obviously do care. Tell me, what are you getting for your shilling? It must be doing something for you else you wouldn't be doing it.

I represent the new default way of doing things in Linux, since systemd will be used by almost all Linux distros in the near future. systemd has won a wholesale victory everywhere, so who would pay for "shilling" against a tiny minority of techno-reactionary Linux users who are unable to even get developers enough to maintain the necessary infrastructure for non-systemd distros?

Comment: Re:Yes, pipelined utilities, like the logs (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47956155) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

So what you are saying, to get the original functionality back you have to add more complexity?

Do you systemd fanboys ever stop and listen to yourselves?

I thought I had made it easy to understand, but let me repeat and rephrase; if you for some reason have a user case for using text logs and therefore use rsyslog or similar, you get a slightly more complicated system since journald is now part of the logging process; but, you also get extra functionality, since journald can provide logging info that stand alone syslog systems can't.

Or to rephrase yet another time; you don't just get the old functionality back by combining systemd and syslog, you get more functionality.

But please, don't use systemd if you don't want to, I don't care at all, as long as you systemd haters fixes your own problems like ConsoleKit and udev, instead of attacking everyone else for not doing the work you ought to do.

Comment: Re:Yes, pipelined utilities, like the logs (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47954205) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

journald delivers ascii logs in real time, you just have to use a syslog daemon like you always have anyway.

Sure. So now I get an additional log daemon which doesn't feed logs back upstream. Explain how this is simplifying my system.

I don't understand what you mean by "doesn't feed logs back upstream". Rsyslog or similar behave just as they always have.

You get a more complex system in order to get new features, in this case; journald+syslog=more logging info than syslog alone.

The above solution is only necessary for crazy legacy setups and log sinks, and people who doesn't yet know how good the journal actually is.

I don't think there are real user cases beyond that. Text logs are simply obsolete on Linux now, since the journal is so superior and can do everything that old text logs do, and much, much more on top of that.

journald=heaps more logging info than old stand alone syslog.
journald=still more logging info than journald+syslog.

Thinking that text logs was the best solution, turned out just to be a wrong concept. The gains of choosing a slightly more complex binary format, turned out to vastly more than the tiny problem of needing a special reader.

So drop your worries and try out systemd; give it a good workout, I think you end up liking it.

Comment: Re:Yes, pipelined utilities, like the logs (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47953521) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

The awesome structured and indexed log file format has a stable API and structure

Odd, so does a syslog. And you can still use tools to read it. Indexed files could be built from it if you had that much logging done. And since systemd has no option to output the ascii log in realtime, you have to use the tools. If you want to use the body of existing tools which do things with normal log files, you'll now need a FUSE filesystem to treat the binary logs like real logs, or you'll simply be out of date as you read the ascii logs from journald.

journald delivers ascii logs in real time, you just have to use a syslog daemon like you always have anyway.

It would be a stupid function duplication if systemd's journald also could partially act as syslog daemon. While outputting text is easy enough, you would also have to have rate-limiting, log-rotation etc. And it still wouldn't replace a classic syslog daemon because it couldn't be used as a log sink, and once you start to add log sink features, you end up with database drivers in the code and all sorts of filters.

The number one design goal for "journald" was "simplicity". Adding syslog features like text output is contrary to this. (unfortunately many people request such features, but the systemd developers have said no every time).

journald is made to be used in conjunction with syslog and actually enhances it because of its features, the journald simply works as a helper process for syslog if desired. Nothing is taken away as things were before systemd, real time text logs is possible. Nobody is forced to use the binary log files when using systemd.

Those who don't need text log files for legacy reasons, or a log sink, can skip the syslog daemon and rejoice in the power of a structured and indexed log file and just use journald. I think over time, this is what most people will, once they "get" the journal: IMHO, it really is logging done right on Linux, something people have tried to improve with only limited success the last decades.

I don't think it is really possible to make a good hybrid log-file, where some parts are a classic text dump, while the meta data and index is in binary. I think it would a complex and fragile solution. It would be much easier let the classic text tools like "grep" learn to read to binary journal directly (jgrep?). But it really isn't needed; a journal reader like "journalctl" combined with piping solves all such problems, so using the classic text tools on the binary journald is quite possible to do in real time.

Here is an example below: lets assume it is a bash script run by cron every 1 hour: it searches the journal for messages of log level "error" that contains the string "softreset".
"journalctl -p err | grep softreset"

As you can see, it isn't a problem using "grep" or "tee" or "sed" or any other classic text GNU tool together with the journal, to do real time inquiries or using them in bash scripts etc.

Comment: Re:Yes, pipelined utilities, like the logs (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47951993) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Logging isn't done by or in PID1.

You have fallen into my trap: So then why did it have to be part of systemd at all? Why couldn't it just be improvements to one of the existing syslog daemons? Answer, NIH.

Because if you want first class service and process management, you need first class logging, and this is exactly what journald does.

You could never do what journald does with classic rsyslog, like living and logging while in initramfs, and then jump over to the main system when the root-fs was mounted, and continue logging while the system booted.

Anyway, that would also restrict systemd logging to a certain syslog daemon. The present solution is a general solution that works with all syslog implementation like syslog-ng and rsyslog etc.

The awesome structured and indexed log file format has a stable API and structure, so it is quite easy for other syslog implementations to read and write in that format. I believe rsyslog have already implemented a reader and some other journald features. So if they want, they too can have all the advantages of rich metadata.

Comment: Re:Yes, pipelined utilities, like the logs (Score 2) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47939811) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

None of which requires that logging be moved into PID 1. Instead, all you need is the ability to support a new log format in some syslogd. Unless you were some kind of moron, you'd design the new program to be able to log to both text and binary formats at the same time so that you could enjoy the benefits of both formats. Systemd may or may not do this, I don't care; there's no reason whatsoever why logging should not be a separate daemon.

Logging isn't done by or in PID1. It is done by the "journald" daemon that have its own pid. I must say, that whoever telling you about how systemd is designed and works, doesn't have a clue what they are talking about. I strongly suggest you check out the systemd homepage for some basic information about systemd.

People are hard to satisfy: some complain that systemd replaces daemons, and now you complain about it _doesn't_ replace syslog for writing text logs?

People who wants simple text-logs can still use rsyslog or whatever they have always used, and have "journald" forward all the messages to it. That way rsyslog can gain some of the systemd benefits like early boot logging, though not them all (rich meta data like monotonic stamps and whatnot). All in all you would be better off than simply using SysVinit and pure rsyslog.

Even without syslog, it is trivial to convert systemd's journal to text. You can even export it as JSON to preserve the rich meta data.

I really think the systemd developers did their homework very well with the design of the logging system. The more I use it, the more I like it. There is no going back for me to plain text logs.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47939491) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

cgroups is a kernel feature. It doesn't stop working because whatever process you're using for cgroup management dies. The process comes back, reads the state from /sys/fs/cgroup, and resumes doing whatever kind of management you wanted.

The point is that most user processes doesn't communicate directly with the kernel, but with a cgroup manager using a higher level API, like systemd or cgmanager. So while the kernel works fine, the "communication link" or the mediator between processes and the kernel would be severed if the cgroup manager in PID2 died. That is highly likely to lead to an unstable system.

Anyway, looking at the design of systemd, you will see that it actually runs very little code in PID1, it just communicate via PID1 to the other helper processes. This enables PID1, the init part, to have total control and supervision of all processes. Making e.g. the cgroup manager run in PID2, wouldn't gain anything, but increase complexity, since there would need to be intense communication between PID1 and PID2 in order for the init system to use cgroup to track all processes.

I think the whole PID1 debate is based, not on hard facts or good analysis, but on a hatred against systemd. People seems to rely on random hate blogs on the net for what systemd is, instead of examining the systemd project for themselves.

Systemd's PID1 is actually rather small, especially compared to what functions it provides. Moving some core bits out of PID1 and place them in PID2 will just increase complexity with little if any gain.

The reality is, that the systemd designers made some good choices when making systemd. Personally I think it is hopeless for all the simple script based init-systems to have real feature parity with systemd, unless they make some of the same design decisions.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47933699) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

Your claims that systemD is well engineered are a little eye-raising. We're talking about a replacement for the init system here, and you say the main feature is logind. That's not really part of what I expect Init to do......

logind isn't a feature with "systemd" (the daemon), but with systemd (the project). "logind" is a consumer of the systemd-daemon's internal API however. That means you can use cgroups and other kernel and systemd features in user sessions. This is how eg. secure root-less is possible with systemd.

I think many peoples idea what init is, have been clouded by the fact that traditional Linux init systems were so primitive. Certified Unix'en like Solaris and Mac OSX have abandoned crude Linux like init systems years ago.

Booting and initialization of a system is quite complex on modern OS's, so doing it by modules that aren't coordinated and aren't developed with the other modules in mind, really limits what the OS can do. Having modules like systemd's, that are designed to talk to each other, all other processes and the kernel, and is developed in a coherent manner, really can remove some old limits on how Linux works. Basic things like conferring "namespaces" and "capabilities" from the kernel to a service, just by adding a simple keyword in the service config file, shows the potential. But multi-seat computing, stateless booting and "zero config" boots are either realized already or being worked upon. With kdbus in the kernel, secure OS containers from basically unmodified Linux distros, will become a reality.

I also think it is good, that systemd now will reduce Linux fragmentation at some level at least, and freeing distro maintainers and developers from a lot of non-fun work like maintaining and debugging init-scripts, while making cross distro collaboration on e.g. extra hardened "Unit" files (service configs) possible.

Here is a youtube video where Lennart Poettering talks about why systemd goes beyond a simple init system:

In any case, in a few months, I'll have time to read the systemD source code, and I will have a better idea if it's well designed or not.

I strongly recommend reading as many relevant sections from this site:

There are also some design documents (like this old one about the journal)

And of course more youtube talks from Fosdem etc:

Comment: Re:The problem... (Score 3, Informative) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47932993) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

I've been a sysadmin for 20 years, and I've seen systems break in lots of interesting ways. What I want is a log mechanism which is as simple as possible so that it as least has a chance of giving me the info I need even if the rest of the system is in the process of going to hell.

What I don't want is an unnecessarily (you aren't even able to explain the advantages, actually some of your "advantages" are disadvantages like the corruption detection) complex system which will take ages to debug, IF it will ever be - most software is already too complex and too fast moving to be ever debugged sufficiently. It violates the KISS principle. And the advantage of Linux over Windows used to be the KISS principle...

systemd's logging facilities are superior to old syslog in several ways. Fx. systemd and journald lives in initramfs while the system is booting, so it can collect logging info from before the root fs is even mounted. Since systemd actually have knowledge about mount points and files systems, it can also delay to the very last moment the things needed for journald to write to the log.

There is also kernel guarantee that the daemons/pid's/programs that appear in the log are the real ones since systemd have total control and supervision of all processes. So if "lp0: printer on fire" appears in the log, you will know whether it is a prank or a real message.

The structure and index makes it possible to store lots of interesting meta-data, like monotonic time-stamps, GUI, PID, command line, marks from where every boot started and ended ("journalctl -b -p err" shows all loglevel "error" messages generated last boot only). Using monotonic timestamps to compare two boot sequences on perhaps two similar machines, is quite interesting and very easy to do.

It also allows for multi-language log support, supplementary help files that can explain what the error message means, suggest how to solve the problem, etc.

Here is a list of fields in the journal. Because of the index, the journal have real time knowledge about what is written in the fields, so there is tab completion and extremely powerful sorting available:

If you care about logging with systemd, take a look a the original design document behind journal
Notice how simplicity is design goal number 1.

If you intend to remain (a paid) Linux sysadmin in the future now where all major distro are starting to convert to systemd, you should really study systemd's journal.
It is much easier to "get" the power of a indexed and structured log file by trying it, than describing it. Fedora 20/CentOS 7 are reasonable choices to learn it on.

check out systemd's "nspawn" too: OS containers really are the future.

Comment: Re:Misleading slashdot headline (Score 2) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47932575) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

And that is part of the problem, that it is presented as a init vs init issue.

It has long since grown past that. Systemd, as a package, now holds udev, journald, its own cron replacement, a network manager, dhcp, ntp, inetd, etc etc etc.

There are several inaccuracies on that list; systemd has timers that may be used as a cron substitute, but really is a different design, so therefore cron can happily co-exist, and nobody forces anybody to use the systemd solution. Systemd doesn't have a replacement for a NTP server, it just has a simple sNTP client. Like the systemd dhcp client, it was made with a special user case in mind, namely OS containers, where existing solutions simply where too slow and noisy (when starting 1000 OS containers at the same time, it really matters if each dhcp client connection takes 60 seconds or 3). AFAIK, the dhcp code is mostly a library that can be ripped out of the systemd source tree.
Nobody forces anybody to use them; they are alternatives, not replacements.

Again, systemd doesn't have an "inetd" server. Systemd uses socket activation as pioneered by inetd, but there are important differences. Lennart has several blog pages about it, here are a couple:

systemd can use "inetd" prepared services, but inetd may happily co-exist together with systemd, and inetd provides services that systemd doesn't provide such as TCPMUX and RPC services.

The journal was a part of systemd early on, because in order to have great service management, you need the best logging possible.

But the crowning achievement may well be logind, that more and more DEs are getting a dependency on.

And logind can only function with systemd as the init, full stop.

logind was part of systemd early on. It has never been a separate project. It has never been meant to work outside systemd. Systemd opponents seems to have this bizarre love-hate relationship with systemd code; they curse it and the open source developers who make it, claiming the code is bad etc. etc. But at the same time they lust for the code, claiming systemd should be split up in smaller modules so they can use it anyway.

It has been a seriously mistake for the systemd opponents that they have become so fixated on systemd's "logind". Why should they care about how systemd solves user session problems? Upstream projects like Gnome and KDE have warned about for years, that an _alternative_ to logind/ConsoleKit should be developed.

Upstream projects like Gnome and KDE becomes dependent on systemd's login, because it solves real problems, like no other maintained program does. If there was an alternative API, from a program with similar functionality, they would happily support that. But no-one seems to care enough to start developing such a program.

It has been said many, many times; the systemd opponents should start to solve their own problems that lie in front of them, instead of wasting breath on trash-talking systemd.
More code, less ranting.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 1) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47932271) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

What will happen is other distress will add a compatibility layer so they can handle all the kludge that has added systemD as a requirement.

First, the "kludges" you are talking about, is a minimal distro agnostic compatibility layer, so that upstreams projects like XFCE can finally get basic system information without searching 20 places just to display e.g. the distro version it is running on top of.

It is one of the many examples on how systemd solves real world problems that helps other Linux developers, which is why systemd is so popular among developers. It is quite shameful that SysVinit (and similar init systems) distros haven't done anything even as basic as that.

The "systemBSD" project can't really be ported to Linux, and the crucial part, "logind" doesn't work yet and may never do. Trying to clone a version of systemd's "logind" is also a the wrong thing to do: trying to present it self as a systemd logind for upstream projects, but without supplying the necessary functions will just mean errors and crashes. A "logind" using the systemd API isn't what upstream projects like Gnome and KDE etc. have asked for the last couple of years; they want an _alternative_ API that support at least the basic features that logind or or ConsoleKit have.

To sum up: what upstream projects wants are an _alternative_ to logind/ConsoleKit, that works and are maintained. It is the most minimal request they can formulate, and is essential for providing modern DE functionality to non-systemd distros.

But even that request are ignored by the systemd opponents, they prefer to trash-talk systemd instead of solving their own problems.

The problem is systemD is bad design. The systemD guys like to say, "but look at all the features!", which is cool, but features aren't an excuse for bad design. "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly" etc etc

Systemd is brilliantly designed and engineered, which is why it has become so popular. Its backwards compatibility is top notch; there was no flag day where every service either was a systemd service, or it wouldn't function.

They studied "launchd" and Solaris "SMF" and other Unix init systems to make an init system that was better in everything, in every detail, than what was available for Linux. SysVinit OTHO, is a notoriously bad design, where code and config options are mixed together in free form executable config files. Systemd separates code from daemon config options, so the latter are in structured text files that are easy to parse for both humans and machines.

The systemd developers really cares about details too, so it has the best bash-completion I have ever seen. It is a joy to work with the systemd CLI tools.

Vague criticisms about systemd's design really isn't much of an argument. Systemd actually works extremely well in the real world.

Comment: Re:Simple set of pipelined utilties! (Score 2) 385

by Peter H.S. (#47930465) Attached to: Torvalds: No Opinion On Systemd

That's true, but pid 2 crashing won't halt the system, because pid 1 can restart it. If pid 1 crashes, it's power cycle time.

If PID2 is responsible for critical features like eg. cgroups which affects all running processes, including PID1, then it won't make a difference.

I do really think that the systemd designers have actually done their homework quite well when they started out. PID1 is quite small and only contain what is needed, everything else runs as helper processes.

Besides that, systemd can supervise itself (PID1) by using a watchdog, so the system can react if PID1 doesn't answer the watchdog "ping".

It's been a business doing pleasure with you.