3 ms·

Well. This http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activation.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activation.html sells socket activation as the best t

Well. This http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activation.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/socket-activation.html sells socket activation as the best thing since sliced bread, including for boot time. It has its uses for some rarely used services and for some startup order problems, yes. About the DNS service, I remember a bug where the fallback behavior was not what people wanted (it was something that seemed to be a good idea to systemd developers but didn't work well in completely reasonable real-world configurations), and the developers rejected the idea that systemd's behavior was wrong. Can't find it right now. I have disabled it on my system as well due to a problem I don't remember. Maybe it didn't use my router's DNS server and went straight to the internet. Maybe I just wanted it to leave my resolv.conf alone.

vetinari 6y ago
> About the DNS service, I remember a bug where the fallback behavior was not what people wanted (it was something that seemed to be a good idea to systemd developers but didn't work well in completely reasonable real-world configurations), and the developers rejected the idea that systemd's behavior was wrong. It was a fallback DNS used when the user has configured nothing. Not only that, it was a default fallback that can be changed by both the distribution package and the user (including disabling completely). It was a tempest in the teapot, by people who have to find some drama.
- ahartmetz 6y ago
  I think I remember what it was now. Local configuration (DHCP?) contained two DNS servers. systemd-resolved switched to the global fallback when it tried one of the local servers and it failed, instead of falling back to the other local server first. It's a completely reasonable configuration to have two local servers for redundancy as well as load balancing, and systemd-resolved broke the redundancy aspect. It was not about a "wrong" global fallback, but about using it when a local alternative still works. It breaks local network name resolution.
  - vetinari 6y ago
    If it behaved like that, yes, it is a bug that needs to be fixed. I don't remember that (not saying that it didn't happen, after a quick search I didn't find any filed issue, #18769 could in theory have similar symptoms), but I remember several threads, including LWN article about the existence of the global fallback.
    - mst 6y ago
      It can both be true that there are a bunch of annoying things about systemd and their response to genuine bugs sometimes leave something to be desired, and that there's a lot of hate for the sake of hate directed at it. This, naturally, just makes everything harder to have a sensible conversation about.
  - totony 6y ago
    What you may be referring to is systemd treating resolv.conf entries as identical DNS servers, where they used to be processed sequentially. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 It's a breaking change for some users. I remember experiencing that bug.

vetinari 6y ago

> About the DNS service, I remember a bug where the fallback behavior was not what people wanted (it was something that seemed to be a good idea to systemd developers but didn't work well in completely reasonable real-world configurations), and the developers rejected the idea that systemd's behavior was wrong. It was a fallback DNS used when the user has configured nothing. Not only that, it was a default fallback that can be changed by both the distribution package and the user (including disabling completely). It was a tempest in the teapot, by people who have to find some drama.

ahartmetz 6y ago
I think I remember what it was now. Local configuration (DHCP?) contained two DNS servers. systemd-resolved switched to the global fallback when it tried one of the local servers and it failed, instead of falling back to the other local server first. It's a completely reasonable configuration to have two local servers for redundancy as well as load balancing, and systemd-resolved broke the redundancy aspect. It was not about a "wrong" global fallback, but about using it when a local alternative still works. It breaks local network name resolution.
- vetinari 6y ago
  If it behaved like that, yes, it is a bug that needs to be fixed. I don't remember that (not saying that it didn't happen, after a quick search I didn't find any filed issue, #18769 could in theory have similar symptoms), but I remember several threads, including LWN article about the existence of the global fallback.
  - mst 6y ago
    It can both be true that there are a bunch of annoying things about systemd and their response to genuine bugs sometimes leave something to be desired, and that there's a lot of hate for the sake of hate directed at it. This, naturally, just makes everything harder to have a sensible conversation about.
- totony 6y ago
  What you may be referring to is systemd treating resolv.conf entries as identical DNS servers, where they used to be processed sequentially. Previous discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228940 It's a breaking change for some users. I remember experiencing that bug.