Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]

Thu Oct 23 17:12:22 UTC 2014

On October 22, 2014 at 15:31 jfbeam at gmail.com (Ricky Beam) wrote:
 > On Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:31:02 -0400, Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com> wrote:
 > > Perhaps you don't remember the days when an fsck was
 > > basically mandatory and could take 15-20 minutes on a large disk.
 > 
 > Journaling has all but done away with fsck. You'd have to go *way* back to  
 > have systems that ran a full fsck on every boot -- and in my experience,  
 > you absolutely wanted that fsck.

That was my point, it was a very brief and concise 30 year history.

That's why I mentioned the introduction of the clean bit which was
when we began recording (there may have been earlier experiments) the
clean unmounting of a file system in the superblock so no need to
fsck.

 > > And you whisk all that away with "it's not really clear to me that
 > > 'reboots in seconds' is a think to be optimized"????

       (I hope it's clear I meant "thing to be opt...")

 > 
 > Your efforts are better spent avoiding an outage in the first place. If  
 > outages are common enough to be something that needs to be "sped up", then  
 > you've already failed.

One important tool is failover. But once a system fails over you'd
like to see the failed component back in service as quickly as
possible unless you have an infinite number of redundant systems.

Your advice doesn't ring true to me.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*