Comment by nine_k
13 hours ago
I would like a comparison with runit, which is a very minimal but almost full-fledged init system. I see many similarities: control directories, no declarative dependencies, a similar set of scripts, the same approach to logging. The page mentions runit in passing, and even suggests using the chpst utility from it.
One contrasting feature is parametrized services: several similar processes (like agetty) can be controlled by one service directory; I find it neat.
Another difference is the ability to initiate reboot or shutdown as an action of the same binary (nitroctl).
Also, it's a single binary; runit has several.
Last year I decommed our last couple of servers that ran processes configured using runit. It was a sad day. I first learned to write runit services probably about 15 years ago and it was very cool and very understandable and I kind of just thought that's how services worked on linux.
Then I left Linux for about 5 years and, by the time I got back, Systemd had taken over. I heard a few bad things about it, but eventually learned to recognise that so many of those arguments were in such bad faith that I don't even know what the real ones are any more. Currently I run a couple of services on Pi Zeros streaming camera and temperature data from the vivarium of our bearded dragon, and it was so very easy to set them up using systemd. And I could use it to run emacsd on my main OpenSuse desktop. And a google-drive Fuse solution on my work laptop. "having something standard is good, actually", I guess.
The backlash against systemd was twofold. On one hand, when released and thrust upon distros via Gnome, it was quite rough around the edges, which caused both real problems and just understandable irritation. Fifteen years after, the kinks are ironed out, but it was sort of a long time. (Btrfs, released at about the same time, took even longer to stop being imprudent to use in production.)
On the other hand, systemd replaces Unix (sort of like Hurd, but differently). It grabs system init, logging, authentication, DNS, session management, cron, daemon monitoring, socket activation, running containers, etc. In an ideal Red Hat world, I suppose, a bare-metal box should contain a kernel, systemd, podman, IP tools, and maybe sshd and busybox. This is a very anti-Unix, mainframe-like approach, but for a big consulting firm, like Red Hat / IBM, it is very attractive.
All this lather about doing it the UNIX way, whilst neglecting to point out that the old tooling was far worse. "Do one thing well" implies it was done well to begin with.
DNS: Can you from memory recite how name lookups work on Linux? Ever had t otrack down problems with non-standard setups? `resolvectl` is not perfect, but it does let you control all of this stuff in one place, and with a nice, orderly view of what does what.
Init system: ever written the old sysV ones from scratch? Sure they're just shell script, but did you remember to make yours re-entrant? What about forking or master-slave processes? Hope you got your pid checking code just right...
Containers: Docker is quite robust nowadays but it's not like it follows the 'UNIX philosophy' either. And systemd/nspawn at least lets you do namespacing and cgroups reasonably well and in a straightforward way...
Mounts, etc.: let's not get into fstab and its idiosyncrasies.
Logging: let's hope you set up logrotate properly or you're in for a surprise.
And on it goes.
Systemd is not perfect. But what it replaces was god-awful and far worse.
No, systemd absolutely does not replace Unix.
Systemd-the-project and systemd-the-service-manager (“init”) are two different things. The former is a project with numerous components (e.g. resolved) that actually _are_ rather modular; they usually require systemd-the-service-manager, but you (or your distro) can generally pick and choose the components you want.
The service manager does indeed require some components to be gobbled up (udev comes to mind). But subsuming other subsystems shouldn’t be so anathema; the systemd people didn’t just think that “the one” thing of the Unix philosophy wasn’t being done well. Rather, the idea is that is was the wrong thing, i.e. classic Unix init was a tool operating at the wrong layer of abstraction. And in their eyes, a modern system needs a richer set of userspace primitives. So they made engineering decisions in pursuit of that goal.
Is following the "Unix way" a terminal value? I.e., is it desirable for itself, or is it just supposed to be a means to an end?
In discussions such as these, the Unix philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" is often being touted as a proxy for (and a necessary attribute of) "good design", as if all possible wisdom about the future of computing was available to the creators of UNIX in 1969.
The thing I don’t like about systemd is the inexplicable need to have multiple files for a service. Why can’t they all be declared in a single unit file?
What do you mean? They can be in a single service file.
Leah Neukirchen is active member of the Void Linux community, I expect a lot of cross-pollination here. It would be really great if she could write up something how to use it for Void.
> no declarative dependencies,
Is that a selling point? Could you explain why?
I've heard plenty of reasons why people find systemd distasteful as an init, but I've not heard much criticism of a declarative design.
I've gotten used to runit via Void Linux, and while it does the job of an init system, its UI and documentation leave something to be desired. The way logging is configured in particular was an exercise in frustration the last time I tried to set it up for a service.
I wouldn't mind trying something else that is as simple, but has sane defaults, better documentation, and a more intuitive UI.
I like using systemd but it also doesn't have great documentation either. I often find myself unable to grok things by only reading the official documentation and I have to resort to reading forum posts, other people's blogposts or Stack Overflow. To me documentation isn't good enough until it doesn't need any third party material.
Logging in runit seems simple (I don't remember running into problems), but indeed, the documentation leaves much to be desired. Could be a good thing to contribute to Void Handbook.
runit doesn't always take care of services it manages in the same way as a proper init . From the man page:
"If runsvdir receives a TERM signal, it exits with 0 immediately"
This is by design.
runsvdir receiving TERM should only happen when stage 2 is triggered to end.
Once that happens, the individual runsv processes are still supervising their individual tasks and can be requested to stop through their respective control sockets. It's how standard stage 3 is implemented.