nanog mailing list archives
Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]
From: Jimmy Hess <mysidia () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 21:48:51 -0500
On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Barry Shein <bzs () world std com> wrote: [snip]
The unix community has exerted great amounts of effort over the decades to speed up reboot, particularly after crashes but also planned. Perhaps you don't remember the days when an fsck was basically mandatory and could take 15-20 minutes on a large disk. Then we added the clean bit (disk unmounted cleanly, no need for
[snip]
And you whisk all that away with "it's not really clear to me that 'reboots in seconds' is a think to be optimized"????
False dilemma. Optimizing reboot time down from 20 minutes to 1 minute is a significantly meaningful improvement; it's literally a 85% reduction in time spent during each boot process from the original time. Reducing boot time from 20 minutes to 10 seconds is not significantly better than reducing it to 1 minute. A different choice of tradeoffs is more appropriate to different kinds of systems, depending on their use case (Desktop vs Server)! Especially, when the method of reduction is subject to diminishing returns and increasing fragility or increasing complexity -- greater risk that something is breaking or more potential for unreliability is introduced into the startup process. Also, you may very well spend more time booting your system in order to troubleshoot, the fact that some applications are starting up in an unexpected order resulting in some issue.
To me that's like saying it's not important to try to design so one can recover from a network outage in seconds.
If you need to ensure that a service is not disrupted for more than seconds, then reboot is not the answer. It is some form of clustering. Reboot as a troubleshooting procedure is for desktops. 10 seconds from power on to user interface for desktops, will meaningfully improve the user experience, but not for servers. For servers, you ideally want to take the misbehaving node out of service and let its failover partner takeover. -- -JH
Current thread:
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT], (continued)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Barry Shein (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Andrew Sullivan (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Christopher Morrow (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Miles Fidelman (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Barry Shein (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Ricky Beam (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Barry Shein (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] nanog (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jeffrey Ollie (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Barry Shein (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Andrew Sullivan (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Barry Shein (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jimmy Hess (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jeffrey Ollie (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jay Ashworth (Oct 27)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jim Mercer (Oct 27)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jeffrey Ollie (Oct 27)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jay Ashworth (Oct 27)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Lamar Owen (Oct 27)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Miles Fidelman (Oct 27)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jay Ashworth (Oct 28)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Jim Mercer (Oct 22)
- Message not available
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Larry Sheldon (Oct 22)