Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2012 15:48:49 +0300 From: Atte =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peltom=E4ki?= <atte.peltomaki@iki.fi> To: Richard Yao <ryao@gentoo.org> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, openrc@gentoo.org, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> Subject: Replacing rc(8) (Was: FreeBSD Boot Times) Message-ID: <20120615124849.GI96212@ass.kameli.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 02:09:38PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote:
> Also, I am certain that the OpenRC developers would be thrilled if
> FreeBSD adopted OpenRC. If FreeBSD core is interested in OpenRC, feel
> free to contact the OpenRC and/or the Gentoo FreeBSD developers. We
> would all love to see OpenRC in upstream FreeBSD.
Replacing rc(8) has a lot of risks and not many benefits. Current system
is somewhat limited, but it works, it's simple to understand and
everyone already knows it and uses it.
Solaris SMF is by far the most advanced bootup/service manager I've come
across, even though it's UI is somewhat irritating. When configured
correctly, you can trust SMF to deal with any problem; when a needed
resource for a given service is down, that service isn't started. When
the service is malfunctioning, it's restarted at a configured interval
or marked as malfunctioning and stopped and admin is contacted. And so
forth. Faster boot times come as a simple added bonus from proper
design.
Anyone serious about replacing rc(8) should take a good look at SMF
feature list, then decide if such a thing is worth spending time
reimplementing. Doing a dozen half-assed implementations like Linux is
doing is just dumb and aggravates sysadmins.
Personally, as much as I like power of SMF, I think FreeBSD devs have
much more important (and interesting) things to do.
--
Atte Peltomäki
atte.peltomaki@iki.fi <> http://kameli.org
"Your effort to remain what you are is what limits you"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120615124849.GI96212>