[arch-general] Think twice before moving to systemd

[Brandon Watkins]

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:54 PM, Felipe Contreras <
felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM, John K Pate <j.k.pate at sms.ed.ac.uk>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 15:16:31 +0200
> > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto
> >> <denisfalqueto at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This is so stupid that it's not even funny. You said that the problem
> >> > was having CONFIG_HZ=300 and systemd. I said it is not, because I also
> >> > have that situation and it works. So, your point is moot. I didn't say
> >> > you don't have a problem, but just that it may be not related to
> >> > CONFIG_HZ. I even sent you an article with ways on how to inspect the
> >> > behaviour of systemd, which was completely ignored.
> >>
> >> My problem with CONFIG_HZ exists
> >> independently of whether you experience the problem yourself or not.
> >
> > But it suggests that the problem is not *just* systemd and
> > CONFIG_HZ=300. I am, and many others are, running systemd with
> > CONFIG_HZ=300 fine.
>
> Show me two bootcharts, one with CONFIG_HZ_300=y, and another with
> CONFIG_HZ_1000=y. Then I will believe that you are running systemd
> fine. The other possibility is that you are just not noticing the
> problem.
>
> > If you encountered a problem, there must be some
> > other underlying cause. A constructive response would work towards
> > finding and addressing the other underlying cause.
>
> A logical reason would be that systemd is too sensitive on signals
> arriving fast, and if that's the case it's quite likely that there is
> no easy solution (if any).
>
> But anyway, my objective is not to improve systemd (I might have tried
> that if Lennart wasn't such an asshole), my objective is to show that
> systemd has problems, and CONFIG_HZ_300=y is just an example... there
> are other issues popping in arch-general that render the system
> unbootable.
>
> Perhaps in the future I will have time to investigate the issue, and
> make a proper bug report, and systemd would work properly for me, and
> most Arch Linux users, but I believe that's not the case *currently*.
>
> So I believe the logical course of action is to delay the migration
> until systemd is more robust.
>
> All I want is to minimize the issues that Arch Linux users hit, but
> unfortunately so far it seems Arch Linux developers don't care about
> how many problems could this move cause.
>
> Cheers.
>
> --
> Felipe Contreras
>
So far it seems you are the only one with this "issue" and you haven't
reported any bugs, so I don't see what you hope to accomplish