Linked by jessesmith on Wed 5th Nov 2014 10:39 UTC
Linux Over the past year I've been reading a lot of opinions on the new init technology, systemd. Some people think systemd is wonderful, the bee's knees. Others claim that systemd is broken by design. Some see systemd as a unifying force, a way to unite the majority of the Linux distributions. Others see systemd as a growing blob that is slowly becoming an overly large portion of the operating system. One thing that has surprised me a little is just how much people care about systemd, whether their opinion of the technology is good or bad. People in favour faithfully (and sometimes falsely) make wonderful claims about what systemd is and what it can supposedly do. Opponents claim systemd will divide the Linux community and drive many technical users to other operating systems. There is a lot of hype and surprisingly few people presenting facts.
Thread beginning with comment 599191
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hobgoblin
Member since:
2005-07-06

Systemd has all kinds of issue with mounts, NFS mounts in particular.

Apparently someone thought it would be clever to delegate the task of mounting to systemd rather than leave it in the hands of mount.

end result is that systemd keeps barfing over slightly odd fstab files that mount has no problems with.

Or do things like yank down the network before dismounting NFS mounts, and then dead hang on the dismount step of shutdown because NFS just wont let go.

This kind of crap is why unix have "do one thing and do it well" binaries tied together with shell scripts.

But here comes systemd and replace a binary that has worked for decades, because "reasons".

Reply Parent Score: 4

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

The idea behind integrating that into the systemd project (as far as I can tell), is that a fully external utility couldn't be properly integrated into the boot sequence, whereas with mount units, you can specify exactly which dependencies exist for each mount, so you don't get non-core mounts sitting there trying to probe for a non-attached network interface, for example.

By specifying your own mount units, as opposed to automatic generation through fstab, you can have a great deal more say over how and when your mount occurs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

edomaur Member since:
2005-08-07

NFS mounts are a problem in itself, and does not need systemd to be one.

Reply Parent Score: 2