Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: systemd sux (Score 1) 423

by buchanmilne (#49566669) Attached to: Debian 8 Jessie Released

First, most modern Linux systems come without an inetd or xinetd, because they have no services which aren't supplied by long-running daemons.

Every modern Unix-like system has inetd or xinetd available, many install one of them by default.

The service we require xinetd for on every production server is: Netbackup's bpcd.

Second, inetd won't listen on things it doesn't need to listen on, let alone xinetd.


# readlink -f $(which init) /usr/lib/systemd/systemd
# netstat -plant|grep systemd
#

How is systemd any different?

Comment: Re: systemd sux (Score 1) 423

by buchanmilne (#49566655) Attached to: Debian 8 Jessie Released

(x)inetd does not control what it attaches, the user does and via plain-text files that are in easy to find standard locations.


# systemctl status rsyncd.socket
rsyncd.socket - Rsync Server Socket
      Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/rsyncd.socket; disabled)
      Active: inactive (dead)
      Listen: [::]:873 (Stream)
  Accepted: 0; Connected: 0
# cat /usr/lib/systemd/system/rsyncd.socket
[Unit]
Description=Rsync Server Socket
Conflicts=rsyncd.service

[Socket]
ListenStream=873
Accept=yes

[Install]
WantedBy=sockets.target

What is this, a non-text file? How is systemd controlling this, any more than xinetd was?

Comment: Re: SystemD added? (Score 1) 472

by buchanmilne (#49549885) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

No, because you would have already fixed the /etc/init.d/zfs file

If you can fix it in /etc/init.d/zfs, you can just as easily copy /usr/lib/systemd/system/zfs.service to /etc/systemd/system and fix /etc/systemd/system/zfs.service

instead of googling "systemd dependancies editor"

Surely you have vi or emacs or nano or pico or something available, with which to add a Requires entry (see systemd.unit(5)) to the zfs service unit?

Comment: Re:systemd, eh? (Score 1) 472

by buchanmilne (#49549761) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

Maybe mr smug, you can tell me where on earth the ACPI events from the sleep key are going and why SystemD refuses to pass them on anywhere sensible.

The sleep button works perfectly here on a system running systemd and KDE. Maybe you have a problem somewhere else.

Because I can't debug problems when they arise easily. That makes it pretty inferior to me.

The only seemingly valid complaint I have seen is that systemctl doesn't provide the exist process. But, this is only the case for Type=simple (yes, the default type), where you probably want Type=forking or Type=oneshot.

Comment: Re:systemd rules!!! (Score 1) 472

by buchanmilne (#49549665) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

I've had to to train all of my junior admins on how to use strace. That took me quite a bit of time, and it takes them a lot of time to go through the huge log files that creates just to find the error string that systemd swallowed. I don't dispute that systemd is better when you have complex dependencies, but it sucks when a unit won't start and it gives you no clue as to why.

You may have been better off reading systemd.service(5), but junior admins should be taught how to use strace regardless ...

I think part of the problem is that sysvinit is basically feature-less, and for a running system actually does nothing (it is initscripts that does this), and so people are used to just having the entire system run by scripts with no useful features (e.g.doing something different with stderr than leaving it to the controlling terminal, letting the current user pollute the environment and thus never have consistent starting of services etc. etc.).

Comment: Re:systemd rules!!! (Score 1) 472

by buchanmilne (#49549657) Attached to: Ubuntu 15.04 Released, First Version To Feature systemd

If you had correctly used Type=oneshot, you wouldn't have been in the dark and would have seen this on the terminal:


# systemctl start broken_systemd
Job for broken_systemd.service failed. See 'systemctl status broken_systemd.service' and 'journalctl -xn' for details.
# systemctl status broken_systemd -l
broken_systemd.service - Broken systemd example
      Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/broken_systemd.service; disabled)
      Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Sat 2015-04-25 07:53:07 SAST; 26s ago
    Process: 7880 ExecStart=/root/broken_systemd.sh (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
  Main PID: 7880 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)

Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST broken_systemd.sh[7880]: Example systemd service
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST broken_systemd.sh[7880]: Error that should not be thrown away
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST systemd[1]: broken_systemd.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST systemd[1]: Failed to start Broken systemd example.
Apr 25 07:53:07 HOST systemd[1]: Unit broken_systemd.service entered failed state.

Just because sysvinit couldn't do anything useful with stderr from a one-short service (and leave it to the controlling terminal to do something with it) doesn't mean systemd shouldn't. Logging it, and informing the user that the job didn't start and where to see more information is much more useful.

Comment: Re:*Grabs a bowl of popcorn* (Score 1) 385

by Idou (#49503133) Attached to: Can High Intelligence Be a Burden Rather Than a Boon?
Don't take this the wrong way. This is for your own good, but. . . get over yourself. You stopped being happy as soon as you stopped seeing yourself as an underdog. You are a hairless monkey that occasionally leaves shit stains on your underwear. Be happy that you can feed yourself without help and without getting most of the shit you stuff your face hole with all over your lap. Your "I am awesome but I could have been so much more awesome" lament shows the true reason you are not happy. You are clueless. The dumbest humans are so, so much smarter than the monkeys with fur. The difference between the smartest and dumbest human is just a rounding error in respect to that. "Smart" people are so unhappy because they forget how "stupid" they really are. "Stupid" people are happier because they are more realistic about their lot in life. Understand that if you accomplished anything worth noting in this very big universe, it was being a little less stupid than your genetics and environment destined you to be. Forgetting that you are an underdog is becoming a self-entitled SOB who wastes precious time lamenting about forgone endless potential. . .

Comment: Re: Energy storage in the grid is 100% efficient! (Score 1) 281

by Idou (#49482609) Attached to: The Myth of Going Off the Power Grid

You may be forced to sell sooner and all your hardware investment calculations would go away.

A situation that forced me to sell my home seems like it would also force me to sell a Treasury bond (perhaps to raise cash so that I would not have to sell my home). However, I suppose you are making a liquidity risk argument which is valid. Hence, I was careful to say similar to a “US Treasury, held to maturity.” However, I still think you argument is an exaggeration for the following reasons:
- Surely your house increases in value by the present value of the future electricity savings. We see this with solar installations, so why not with batteries?
- Batteries may not be as liquid as a financial instruments, but they are probably one of the easier fixed assets to sell off for close to their fair value on short notice.

It may be stuck by lightning, destroyed in some other natural disaster and it will not be covered by some manufacturer's warranty, which may be useless anyway if manufacturer goes out of business which is very likely over decades.

Yes, but these risks can be mitigated by 3rd party warranties and/or insurance. You COULD structure the investment so that it is risk free by giving up some of your return. Since risk free investments are around 0% right now, the bar is fairly low. Also, solar panels are typically covered by home insurance, so it does not seem a stretch that a residential battery bank would be fairly easy to add on to an existing insurance policy.

And yes, insurance company will certainly charge you extra for extra risk, there is no free money.

Of course, but insurance companies exist because they cover risks of assets without causing the investment in the underlying asset to have a negative return. The risks to a residential battery bank are similar to the risks to a home, so it seems reasonable to assume the additional insurance cost to someone who already has home owner's insurance would be minimal.

most original S&P 500 companies are out of business or out of S&P.

Good point. The original poster seemed to be unaware of the concept of survivorship bias. . .
This is much better than the usual financial discussion that occurs on Slashdot. Now we just need you to make an account so that you are no longer an Anon and can help Slashdot have more rational financial posts.

The absent ones are always at fault.

Working...