From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 21 06:50:19 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9EA7106566B; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:50:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) Received: from vps.rulingia.com (host-122-100-2-194.octopus.com.au [122.100.2.194]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454C48FC17; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:50:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from server.rulingia.com (c220-239-254-65.belrs5.nsw.optusnet.com.au [220.239.254.65]) by vps.rulingia.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5L6oE2D017945 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:50:14 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) X-Bogosity: Ham, spamicity=0.000000 Received: from aspire.rulingia.com (aspire.rulingia.com [192.168.123.161]) by server.rulingia.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5L6nx1B068531 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:50:07 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter@rulingia.com) Received: from aspire.rulingia.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by aspire.rulingia.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5KLeA38015683 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:40:31 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter@aspire.rulingia.com) Received: (from peter@localhost) by aspire.rulingia.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id q5KLe6nD015682; Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:40:06 +1000 (EST) (envelope-from peter) Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 07:40:06 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy To: Daniel Robbins Message-ID: <20120620214006.GA1651@aspire.rulingia.com> References: <4FDFB44D.9090308@gentoo.org> <4FE0ADCD.9010109@FreeBSD.org> <4FE0C123.8030301@gentoo.org> <4FE0F773.1080403@gentoo.org> <4FE100F9.2050009@funtoo.org> <20120620073920.GA5300@lonesome.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6TrnltStXW4iwmi0" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://www.rulingia.com/keys/peter.pgp User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 11:12:49 +0000 Cc: Mark Linimon , Doug Barton , Garrett Cooper , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" , Vincent Hoffman , Richard Yao , Nathan Whitehorn , Outback Dingo , Wojciech Puchar , openrc@gentoo.org, Atte =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peltom=E4ki?= Subject: Re: Replacing rc(8) (Was: FreeBSD Boot Times) X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 06:50:19 -0000 --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2012-Jun-20 09:05:05 -0600, Daniel Robbins wrote: >I see a great potential for collaboration here between Gentoo, Funtoo >(my current project, a derivative/fork of Gentoo), FreeBSD and OpenRC >(which is now an independently-managed project, distinct from the >upstream distros) The more different projects can share common code, the better. >But if boot time isn't a huge priority, then maybe it is the wrong >place to focus. Boot time is an issue for some people - even people with "never rebooted" servers need fast boot times when they _do_ need to reboot (hardware failures, kernel security fixes) to get that last '9' of uptime. > I think the big benefit of OpenRC to FreeBSD is that >we are looking to continually improve it and include you in the >requirements-gathering process for future development efforts. Even if FreeBSD doesn't switch to OpenRC, it's definitely worth looking at the shortcomings of the current rc system and how it could be improved. The most obvious ones (IMHO) are: - Lack of dependency handling for manual start/stop - No provision to automatically restart a daemon if it dies. >Solaris SMF has already been mentioned. As someone who has had the misfortune to use it, I would say that the underlying concept is nice but the implementation is a disaster. In particular, _everything_ is different to "traditional" Unix init systems. The systems administrator needs to learn a completely new mindset for interacting with the init system and the package developer has to develop completely different service management scripts. On 2012-Jun-20 17:28:45 +0200, Wojciech Puchar wrote: >1) can it be compatible with 20000 ports already made for FreeBSD, where= =20 >many of them install rc.d scripts in CURRENT format. The dependency information should already be encoded in both base and ports rc scripts. Unfortunately, it looks like OpenRC encodes the information in a different way, so it's not just a plugin replacement. One task for anyone wanting to integrate OpenRC would be working out how to handle this - preferably without rewriting every rc script. Since we already have dependency information, there is no technical reason why a tool like rcorder(8) couldn't indicate that particular scripts or groups of scripts could run in parallel. In practice, I expect that doing so will turn up a large number of scripts which have incorrect dependency information which has been masked by the current serial processing. Anyone implementing parallel rc processing will need to be able to distinguish between errors in their tools and errors in the actual rc scripts. I know dougb@ regularly picks up issues with new & updated ports but it's not realistic to rely on him manually picking up every rc script error. --=20 Peter Jeremy --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/iQzYACgkQ/opHv/APuIcvXACfdI9oHpHFdU4CB0KvK9mtB3xX 7WkAn089XtD4Cs9vxILx/BB5g1gywe4r =JQ1V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6TrnltStXW4iwmi0--