5 ms·
Probably more likely due to the cost of breaking compatibility. It's probably the most popular rolling release distribution out there, and I imagine a large par
by lclarkmichalek 9y ago
Probably more likely due to the cost of breaking compatibility. It's probably the most popular rolling release distribution out there, and I imagine a large part of that is because they'll do anything they can to avoid breaking compatibility.
- StreamBright 9y agoI am not sure. In theory it is easy to convert init.d scripts to systemd service programatically. I see energy/CPU consumption a much bigger problem with it. We did some performance testing and systemd was using way much CPU time than sysv/upstart under similar cirtumstances. I guess the difference is huge when you apply it to 2M computers (this is how many Amazon used to have) https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-14/5-numbers-that-illustrate-the-mind-bending-size-of-amazon-s-cloud.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-11-14/5-numbers-that-ill...
- icebraining 9y agoHow did you compare the two? Systemd replaces more components than sysv alone, like rsyslog; was that taken into account?
- onli 9y agoDoes it matter? If one were to find out that it uses more energy because of those components, would that change anything regarding the decision of using it or not because of that higher energy usage?
- icebraining 9y agoIt matters that you're measuring equivalent things. If systemd replaces three components, you need to compare its energy consumption with those three components, not just with sysv/upstart.
- annnnd 9y agoNot OP, but if you are measuring the complete system with similar functionality then the comparison would be fair.
- StreamBright 9y agoExactly, the sum of what I need (init + logging + ntp) should be close to using just systemd.