RFC: a new init system for Arch

Romashka · 2007-04-05 09:14:15

emphire wrote:

The thing that frustrates me (a little bit) about the current init system is that it doesn't give me as much control as I want. In the current system, you put an '&' in front of one of your daemons and there's no telling what other daemons will load before it's done loading.

It's @, not &.
If rc.d daemon foo depends on bar, it is still possible to start bar in background without problems that it may cause for foo, just modify foo to wait until /var/run/daemons/bar is created.
You may either modify all daemons that require bar or provide configurable solution.
Usually this is not needed because, for example, apache daemon is usually placed somewhere in the end of DAEMONS list, so anyway network rc.d script running in background has more than enought time to be finished by that time.

Also see hal daemon - it starts acpi daemon if it exists.

Last edited by Romashka (2007-04-05 09:14:40)

iphitus · 2007-04-05 09:15:10

liem wrote:

Sure BSD init has some problem, laptops with different network configurations comes to mind, but its simplicity makes it easy for me, as a user, to modify them to fit my needs.

Network configurations: http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Network_Scripts
Scripts are still in development, but are a functioning example of what we should have soon

emphire wrote:

I think backgrounding the network daemon is a bad idea (unless you don't have any daemons that require network access). For me that's the whole point of these kinds of init replacements. They'll keep track of dependencies for you and start everything in the background as soon as possible.

You'd be surprised, some that need network access will start before the network happily -- but that's not my point.

If you want dependency resolution, write a patch and add it. Discussion rarely goes anywhere in Arch, and we're not changing init system for one questionable feature that most people couldn't care less about.

emphire wrote:

I agree with some of your points. I think the computer should do exactly what I say (although, I think sane and usable defaults are a wonderful complement to control and configuration). The thing that frustrates me (a little bit) about the current init system is that it doesn't give me as much control as I want. In the current system, you put an '&' in front of one of your daemons and there's no telling what other daemons will load before it's done loading.

No. It's not a fault with the whole init system, it's just that nobody has ever considered it important enough to add as a feature.

Our scripts could be capable of everything the others do, someone just needs to care enough to add the features. You do realise, that changing initscripts is a huge change, and will not happen. I'm not being closed or anything here, it's too much of an overhaul, and would change the personality of the distro as you know it drastically. It will not happen.

James

jf/ · 2007-04-05 14:41:41

Cerebral wrote:

jf/ wrote:
I would argue that modules could be. Sure, the (network) daemons might need to wait for *some* modules, but not all. Definitely not the ones involving usb, for eg...
Just a point of note, making assumptions about people's hardware is a bad idea.
I have a USB wireless network dongle that I use to connect to my network. My daemons would have to definitely wait for the ones involving usb.

yeah, i guess u're right. I didnt mean to specify some hard-coded system that is difficult for the user to change, though. I pretty much agree with what deficite says about "simple" is not the same as "easy" (or perhaps "treating u like an idiot, and doing everything for u"), and that i should be able to control my system the way i want to.

jf/ · 2007-04-05 15:02:02

iphitus wrote:

RE Modules:
You can speed these up if you want, turn off autoload, and then have them loaded at at time you think is more comfortable for you.
As for the daemons, just in case you didnt realise, there's a background option, so you can background network and other daemons that you think take too long.
Rather than discussing, write some patches and code, and we can discuss those. If you want somethng implemented, in Arch, generally it's better to go ahead and do it first.
James

ur points are worthy of thought. Anyway, i've done some thinking (and relooking through the Arch system), and these are my ideas so far:

We could implement a sort of "parallelism within serialism". This would allow for the faster bootup (and since everybody(??) has chosen to focus on just the one aspect of what i've raised, let me say yet again that there's also supervision of processes. Speaking of which, i have yet to hear anything from iphitus) that some people may seek, and yet still fit within the current Arch system (which, at this point in time, i think may still be the better way to go).

So the idea is this - broadly, run things in serial (see numberings below), but within each level, run things in parallel.
The sequence for doing things would be:
1. load fs modules (forget the rest, because... see no. 2. Or perhaps u can go ahead and load some other modules in here as well, because most of the time, ur fsck should go through since u're running a journalled fs anyway???)
2. do ur fsck stuff
3. load non-net modules, and non-net "daemons" (and even net daemons that dont need the network to be up - binding to 0.0.0.0 comes to mind)
4. load net modules
5. run net daemons

Note: there might also be dependencies at the level of 3. (eg. "alsa" should only run after ur sound modules have been loaded), but i have chosen to keep it simple for now. Pending suggestions and ideas, i will next think of when and how to work on hacking the current init system.

iBertus · 2007-04-05 16:08:45

I'm not going to make a huge post about this, but I feel a response is in order. First, I like the current Arch init system. Why? Well, because it is very flexible and doesn't use any cheap tricks. Second, I can boot from switch-to-X in 11 seconds when everything is configured correctly. This is on-par with Windows XP and is only slowed by network starting and disk checking. I'm using the JFS filesystem and so check times are slightly slower than I'd like so I suppose this speed could be improved by changing filesystems and backgrounding network, but I don't see a need. IMHO, the system is very straight forward... a property now found often in software these days.

If you wish to change the init system I would say go ahead. Make the changes (it'll be alot of changes) and post the howto. Hell, I may even try out what you post on my secondary install.

ekerazha · 2007-04-05 20:39:37

Romashka wrote:

I don't even say they violate the philosophy of of Arch Linux - this is obvious.

Well I don't think so, for this reason: http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=29679#p232236 (second part). Upstart is very "simple" if you think it have to "run" something and not "start" something.

Last edited by ekerazha (2007-04-05 20:41:00)

ekerazha · 2007-04-05 20:51:13

iphitus wrote:

Rather than discussing, write some patches and code, and we can discuss those. If you want somethng implemented, in Arch, generally it's better to go ahead and do it first.

Migrate to another init system like upstart isn't really simple. You have to replace the init system, maybe adapt init scripts and maybe patch several packages to take advantage of the new "events" system. I don't think somebody will make this "large, hard work" so "maybe" "one day" Arch devs will include this work into Arch. Imho there should be a decision *before*. When there's a decision, there will could be this "large, hard work". Just my 2 cents.

P.S.
Ubuntu is using upstart, Frugalware will use upstart, maybe Fedora will use upstart too. Is there a reason?

Last edited by ekerazha (2007-04-05 20:55:13)

lloeki · 2007-04-06 00:30:38

my grain of salt: on various distros, I tried upstart (ubuntu), tried init-ng (gentoo), tried einit (gentoo). my favorite is Arch's current. performance-wise it's just on par with the best of them, and much easier to use. really, why bother.

Last edited by lloeki (2007-04-06 00:31:40)

deficite · 2007-04-06 03:07:58

Get your system converted to upstart with all current functionality and THEN tell us how damn simple the process is. I tell you what: I'd better be able to configure it from rc.conf. Ready? Set? Go!

Last edited by deficite (2007-04-06 03:10:53)

iphitus · 2007-04-06 10:16:49

ekerazha wrote:

iphitus wrote:
Rather than discussing, write some patches and code, and we can discuss those. If you want somethng implemented, in Arch, generally it's better to go ahead and do it first.
Migrate to another init system like upstart isn't really simple. You have to replace the init system, maybe adapt init scripts and maybe patch several packages to take advantage of the new "events" system. I don't think somebody will make this "large, hard work" so "maybe" "one day" Arch devs will include this work into Arch. Imho there should be a decision *before*. When there's a decision, there will could be this "large, hard work". Just my 2 cents.
P.S.
Ubuntu is using upstart, Frugalware will use upstart, maybe Fedora will use upstart too. Is there a reason?

They all use somewhat similar SysV initscripts too, not BSD. So for them, moving to upstart is less of a difference. For us? that means practical removal of rc.conf and many other Arch configs you've learned to love. This would be gutting the distro practically.

But as I've said a lot of times, stop yabbing and show us an implementation. If it's so easy to convert, then it shouldn't take you long to do it and provide some packages to show us. It wont ever be merged, but if it's so good. then im sure others will be happy to use it from a custom repo.

Jf/ you oversimplify...... you do realise what you describe is somewhat more complicated than you think, and would involve some very big changes?

People, shut up and do something, then you'll realise how silly your proposal is.

James

Last edited by iphitus (2007-04-06 10:20:09)

ekerazha · 2007-04-06 13:06:45

iphitus wrote:

ekerazha wrote:
iphitus wrote:
Rather than discussing, write some patches and code, and we can discuss those. If you want somethng implemented, in Arch, generally it's better to go ahead and do it first.
Migrate to another init system like upstart isn't really simple. You have to replace the init system, maybe adapt init scripts and maybe patch several packages to take advantage of the new "events" system. I don't think somebody will make this "large, hard work" so "maybe" "one day" Arch devs will include this work into Arch. Imho there should be a decision *before*. When there's a decision, there will could be this "large, hard work". Just my 2 cents.
P.S.
Ubuntu is using upstart, Frugalware will use upstart, maybe Fedora will use upstart too. Is there a reason?
They all use somewhat similar SysV initscripts too, not BSD. So for them, moving to upstart is less of a difference. For us? that means practical removal of rc.conf and many other Arch configs you've learned to love. This would be gutting the distro practically.
But as I've said a lot of times, stop yabbing and show us an implementation. If it's so easy to convert, then it shouldn't take you long to do it and provide some packages to show us. It wont ever be merged, but if it's so good. then im sure others will be happy to use it from a custom repo.
Jf/ you oversimplify...... you do realise what you describe is somewhat more complicated than you think, and would involve some very big changes?
People, shut up and do something, then you'll realise how silly your proposal is.
James

Did you read my post or what? I've said "Migrate to another init system like upstart isn't really simple. You have to replace the init system, maybe adapt init scripts and maybe patch several packages to take advantage of the new "events" system.".

Because of this is not simple to implement, If ever this have to be done, this should be a "distro choice", you cannot think some user will make a custom repo with every package that needs changes etc. this is unhuman. If ever this have to be done, this should be a "distro choice". If the "distro men" says: "no upstart" I'll say "what a pity" and I'll continue to use Arch. If the "distro men" will say "the distro will use upstart", then I could begin to implement it this evening... but "If ever" the official support of the distro in *needed* for such huge changes. Just my 2/3/4 cents

Last edited by ekerazha (2007-04-06 13:47:16)

ekerazha · 2007-04-06 13:28:18

Some news about the Frugalware implementation results: http://www.alex-smith.me.uk/?p=59

"Well, I finished porting the SysV scripts of all the services installed on my machine to Upstart jobs. Boot and shutdown is now blazingly fast "

Last edited by ekerazha (2007-04-06 13:30:40)

fiormat · 2007-04-06 13:50:38

I don't understand why there are so many people sensitive to boot/shutdown times...the only thing I care about is, that Linux has properly booted, and that it can be easily configured as in Arch

deficite · 2007-04-06 13:51:13

Ok. I'll tell you this once: We are not Frugalware, we are not Ubuntu, and we are not Fedora (thank goodness). Bandwagon techniques don't work here.

Last edited by deficite (2007-04-06 13:52:09)

ekerazha · 2007-04-06 14:13:49

deficite wrote:

Ok. I'll tell you this once: We are not Frugalware, we are not Ubuntu, and we are not Fedora (thank goodness). Bandwagon techniques don't work here.

Stay relaxed dude

ekerazha · 2007-04-06 14:17:05

fiormat wrote:

I don't understand why there are so many people sensitive to boot/shutdown times...the only thing I care about is, that Linux has properly booted, and that it can be easily configured as in Arch

Well... I've to say upstart on Ubuntu also fixed some issues I've always had on many distros, like the shutdown freeze with Samba ( http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/5560 ). And it is a clean and intelligent system *IMHO* (just like I've already explained in other threads).

Last edited by ekerazha (2007-04-06 14:20:43)

broch · 2007-04-06 15:40:48

ekerazha wrote:

Some news about the Frugalware implementation results: http://www.alex-smith.me.uk/?p=59
"Well, I finished porting the SysV scripts of all the services installed on my machine to Upstart jobs. Boot and shutdown is now blazingly fast "

what this shows is that system faster than mine boots 3 sec shorter..
he has desktop AMD3800 and at least 7200rpm disk I have laptop core duo t2500 and 5400rpm disk and system boots in 22sec to kde. I would assume that on a desktop with 7200rmp disk Arch would boot faster.

phrakture · 2007-04-06 16:17:19

broch wrote:

ekerazha wrote:
Some news about the Frugalware implementation results: http://www.alex-smith.me.uk/?p=59
"Well, I finished porting the SysV scripts of all the services installed on my machine to Upstart jobs. Boot and shutdown is now blazingly fast "
what this shows is that system faster than mine boots 3 sec shorter..
he has desktop AMD3800 and at least 7200rpm disk I have laptop core duo t2500 and 5400rpm disk and system boots in 22sec to kde. I would assume that on a desktop with 7200rmp disk Arch would boot faster.

I was gonna say something to this effect to. I have a < 3GHz sempron here that boots to console in 7 seconds.

Gullible Jones · 2007-04-06 17:35:52

1.6 GHz (supposedly 2.2 equivalent) Sempron, 7200 RPM HDD, boots to console in 20-30 seconds depending on filesystem, and on whether I've just upgraded the kernel.

(Uevents is the main bottleneck, and it seems to be much faster on XFS, for instance, than on ext3.)

For my $0.02: better parallel loading would be nice. However, using System V initscripts would be stupid. SysV is pretty un-user-friendly stuff, and one of Arch's main strengths is that the config files are not a wild jumble.

iphitus · 2007-04-06 21:24:42

ekerazha wrote:

Did you read my post or what? I've said "Migrate to another init system like upstart isn't really simple. You have to replace the init system, maybe adapt init scripts and maybe patch several packages to take advantage of the new "events" system.".

I know, could you read my posts? I've been saying this all thread!

deficite · 2007-04-07 03:08:46

ekerazha wrote:

deficite wrote:
Ok. I'll tell you this once: We are not Frugalware, we are not Ubuntu, and we are not Fedora (thank goodness). Bandwagon techniques don't work here.
Stay relaxed dude

ROFLMFAO. You people amuse me.

ekerazha · 2007-04-07 07:08:25

iphitus wrote:

ekerazha wrote:
Did you read my post or what? I've said "Migrate to another init system like upstart isn't really simple. You have to replace the init system, maybe adapt init scripts and maybe patch several packages to take advantage of the new "events" system.".
I know, could you read my posts? I've been saying this all thread!

I know, so why did you say to me "it isn't simple" etc. etc. when I've said the same thing?

deficite wrote:

ROFLMFAO. You people amuse me.

We are all happy for this, dude

Last edited by ekerazha (2007-04-07 07:14:03)

cromo · 2007-04-07 11:49:43

Some people are overreacting. If all of the "put some changes into archlinux" discussions are meant to look like this then this community is definetely running down the slope...

deficite · 2007-04-07 13:50:35

Maybe if you were told over and over that you should switch to an alternate init system that would completely change what Arch is and were told that it was "easy" to do and that what you're doing is wrong and that it is inferior to some other system and then completely ignore reason and anything that the developers WITH experience are saying, you would be mad too. I said that we are not any other distro than Arch and you tell me to calm down (if only you realized how you amuse me). I wasn't even excited for two reasons. One: this is not worth excitement. Two: this is never going to happen, so I have nothing to worry about. If you honestly think you've "excited" me, then you are delusional.

@cromo: "put some changes into archlinux" DISCUSSIONS. This is not a discussion. This is some people that don't have any experience developing Arch stuff and don't have much experience with Arch at all trying to tell people who have been using Arch for several years how Arch should run. The people who know what they are talking about are being considered "the bad guys". We've said a few times for them to develop this on their own and if it in fact DOES cure cancer and world hunger, we'll look at it. They ignore this. To those people I have to say: "Welcome to open source! If you want something you have every capability to do so. Don't expect the world to solve problems only YOU have."

edit: I looked at registered date on jf/ and it appears he's been here since 2003. So he's not in the "inexperienced" category. However, doesn't change my point.

edit2: Another point I have to make. Remember when I said that Arch is not frugalware, etc.? Common sense tells you to use the best tool for the job. If another distro suits your needs, then go use it. Frugalware isn't bad from what I've read, and you could definitely do a lot worse.

Last edited by deficite (2007-04-07 13:53:51)

ekerazha · 2007-04-07 18:40:15

deficite wrote:

Maybe if you were told over and over that you should switch to an alternate init system that would completely change what Arch is and were told that it was "easy" to do and that what you're doing is wrong and that it is inferior to some other system and then completely ignore reason and anything that the developers WITH experience are saying, you would be mad too. I said that we are not any other distro than Arch and you tell me to calm down (if only you realized how you amuse me). I wasn't even excited for two reasons. One: this is not worth excitement. Two: this is never going to happen, so I have nothing to worry about. If you honestly think you've "excited" me, then you are delusional.

I think that "upstart" is far better than the current init system of Arch, but I also think that Arch (with the exception of the init system) is better than every other distro. This is my opinion... I've my opinions and you have your opinions, but I don't say to you things like "I'll tell you this once:" etc. etc. with the blatant manners of a 2yo child. I'll continue to use Arch with or without "upstart" but I should be able to express this opinion without 2yo trolls around. I had my first computer at 3yo, I use Linux from 1998 and I study computer engineering at university, so maybe I'm not unexperienced as you think... and I've never said that implementing this new init system would be easy (clearly you didn't read what I wrote). Change an init system doesn't mean completely change a distro. Finally, I've a suggestion for some people: have a life, this is only computer software... so stay relaxed

Last edited by ekerazha (2007-04-07 18:41:54)

Arch Linux

#26 2007-04-05 09:14:15

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#27 2007-04-05 09:15:10

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#28 2007-04-05 14:41:41

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#29 2007-04-05 15:02:02

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#30 2007-04-05 16:08:45

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#31 2007-04-05 20:39:37

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#32 2007-04-05 20:51:13

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#33 2007-04-06 00:30:38

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#34 2007-04-06 03:07:58

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#35 2007-04-06 10:16:49

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#36 2007-04-06 13:06:45

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#37 2007-04-06 13:28:18

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#38 2007-04-06 13:50:38

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#39 2007-04-06 13:51:13

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#40 2007-04-06 14:13:49

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#41 2007-04-06 14:17:05

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#42 2007-04-06 15:40:48

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#43 2007-04-06 16:17:19

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#44 2007-04-06 17:35:52

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#45 2007-04-06 21:24:42

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#46 2007-04-07 03:08:46

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#47 2007-04-07 07:08:25

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#48 2007-04-07 11:49:43

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#49 2007-04-07 13:50:35

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

#50 2007-04-07 18:40:15

Re: RFC: a new init system for Arch

Board footer