7 ms·

systemd is fine for single user systems and perhaps verts, but I would never deploy it on a server. The deprecation of cgroup v1 is a welcome change. It's come

systemd is fine for single user systems and perhaps verts, but I would never deploy it on a server. The deprecation of cgroup v1 is a welcome change. It's come a long way, but it still has a very long way to go.

otabdeveloper4 4y ago
- xdfgh1112 4y ago
  That isn't so true anymore, given their focus on home directory management and killing all user processes on logout (desktop-focused and doesn't work well with tmux or ssh)
  - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
    > killing all user processes on logout This is a good default for the server use-case, to prevent developers and sysadmins launching stealth long-running jobs. (Especially if they steal resources.) The idea is you'd run batch jobs and services explicitly via systemd-run.
    - effie 4y ago
      Why is systemd developers preventing sysadmins/developers from something they want to do on their own/assigned machines a "good default"? Why is their systemd-run idea valid and decades of established unix practice is not? This is really bonkers, don't invent or repeat "rationale" from the vendorthat obviously is anti-user and makes no sense.
      - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
        Security by default is usually a good default, yes. systemd-run exists because a) you can use it to limit resources, b) it registers long-running processes under systemctl so you can interact with them under another session, and c) logs go into a central place. Established Unix practice doesn't give you any of that unless you write a mountain of very opinionated shell scripts, which at that point why not just use the standard systemd instead?
        effie 4y ago
        Security is a spectrum, and too much security means less freedom and shitty life experience. I don't have a problem with a new tool such as systemd-run. I do have a problem with breaking well established workflows in the name of security/efficiency/ideology, when users didn't ask for it. That is a policy question with different answers on different systems. Anybody who cares about that kind of restrictions has to think and implement policies on their systems on their own. Relying on systemd to do the right policy thing for everybody is unrealistic, naive and warped idea of what users need.
- lakomen 4y ago
  That is such a bullshit comment, entitled and ignorant, genZ type of stupid
panick21_ 4y ago
Facebook runs lots of Systemd but I'm sure on your infrastructure you couldn't run it.
- Dah00n 4y ago
  Facebook is a Bad Example on stability at scale..
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    No it isn't. Running a hyper-scale infrastructure is incredible fucking hard and doing it at all is amazing.
- stopdropnhotpot 4y ago
  I imagine Facebook uses highly monitored virts that are spawned and destroyed constantly. I really wouldn't call them "servers" more like instances or staging hosts for containers. Root exploits aren't so serious in a ethereal state..
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    They use lots of different things for lots of different things I would assume. Also most people today use virtualization.
- WhyNotHugo 4y ago
  Facebook also uses PHP. The fact that somebody made a huge service work with a specific tool doesn't automatically imply it's the best tool, or even a good tool.

otabdeveloper4 4y ago

xdfgh1112 4y ago
That isn't so true anymore, given their focus on home directory management and killing all user processes on logout (desktop-focused and doesn't work well with tmux or ssh)
- otabdeveloper4 4y ago
  > killing all user processes on logout This is a good default for the server use-case, to prevent developers and sysadmins launching stealth long-running jobs. (Especially if they steal resources.) The idea is you'd run batch jobs and services explicitly via systemd-run.
  - effie 4y ago
    Why is systemd developers preventing sysadmins/developers from something they want to do on their own/assigned machines a "good default"? Why is their systemd-run idea valid and decades of established unix practice is not? This is really bonkers, don't invent or repeat "rationale" from the vendorthat obviously is anti-user and makes no sense.
    - otabdeveloper4 4y ago
      Security by default is usually a good default, yes. systemd-run exists because a) you can use it to limit resources, b) it registers long-running processes under systemctl so you can interact with them under another session, and c) logs go into a central place. Established Unix practice doesn't give you any of that unless you write a mountain of very opinionated shell scripts, which at that point why not just use the standard systemd instead?
      - effie 4y ago
        Security is a spectrum, and too much security means less freedom and shitty life experience. I don't have a problem with a new tool such as systemd-run. I do have a problem with breaking well established workflows in the name of security/efficiency/ideology, when users didn't ask for it. That is a policy question with different answers on different systems. Anybody who cares about that kind of restrictions has to think and implement policies on their systems on their own. Relying on systemd to do the right policy thing for everybody is unrealistic, naive and warped idea of what users need.
lakomen 4y ago
That is such a bullshit comment, entitled and ignorant, genZ type of stupid

panick21_ 4y ago

Facebook runs lots of Systemd but I'm sure on your infrastructure you couldn't run it.

Dah00n 4y ago
Facebook is a Bad Example on stability at scale..
- panick21_ 4y ago
  No it isn't. Running a hyper-scale infrastructure is incredible fucking hard and doing it at all is amazing.
stopdropnhotpot 4y ago
I imagine Facebook uses highly monitored virts that are spawned and destroyed constantly. I really wouldn't call them "servers" more like instances or staging hosts for containers. Root exploits aren't so serious in a ethereal state..
- panick21_ 4y ago
  They use lots of different things for lots of different things I would assume. Also most people today use virtualization.
WhyNotHugo 4y ago
Facebook also uses PHP. The fact that somebody made a huge service work with a specific tool doesn't automatically imply it's the best tool, or even a good tool.