SoylentNews

About 6 months ago, there was much discussion here and elsewhere regarding the introduction of systemd in many of the leading linux distros. Some of us chose to move to alternative software, but for many others the change came and went largely unnoticed. Now, an Anonymous Coward writes:

Structural and semantic deficiencies in the systemd architecture for real-world service management

This is a in-depth architectural critique of systemd. It claims to be the first purely technical review of systemd internals, and provides a detailed analysis of several components. It criticizes on the basis of ordering related failures, a difficult to predict execution model, non-determinism in boot-order, as well as several other points.

Though many users would perceive the long processing pipeline to increase reliability and be more "correct" than the simpler case, there is little to acknowledge this. For one thing, none of jobs, transactions, unit semantics or systemd-style dependencies map to the Unix process model, but rather are necessary complications to address issues in systemd being structured as an encapsulating object system for resources and processes (as opposed to a more well-defined process supervisor) and one accommodating for massive parallelism. Reliability gains would be difficult to measure, and that more primal toolkits like those of the daemontools family have been used in large-scale deployments for years would serve as a counterexample needing overview.

Original Submission #1  Original Submission #2