On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 03:24:47PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 01:12:08PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The meme that systemd is better than upstart because it doesn't depend > > on a shell is poppycock. No one has done any benchmarking to support > > the claim that /bin/sh is a bottleneck for upstart (particularly not on > > Debian or Ubuntu, where /bin/sh is dash, not bash);
> I have. Not on debian, but on debianish system with dash. And the result > was that shellscripts are indeed the bottleneck. We still did convert to > upstart since we believed it would allow us to cut down the amount of > shell scripts. The event based architecture however forced much more > shell scripting[1] that made the boot time improvement much less than > hoped. Interesting to know, thanks. Was this done in a head-to-head comparison with the systemd "no shell" boot? > [1] stuff like this: > -snip- > post-start script > # wait until daemon is ready > timeout=6 > while [ ! -e /var/run/cups/cups.sock ]; do > sleep 0.5 > timeout=$((timeout-1)) > -snip- Oh dear, you've managed to find the worst upstart job in Ubuntu ;) FWIW, this is entirely due to a bug in upstart upstream which I'm planning on fixing for this Ubuntu cycle, precisely to be able to kill off that awful script. If you have other stuff *like* this, I'd be interested to see it. That particular upstart job is needed only because of peculiarities of how cups starts up. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
