Re: [atomic-devel] Has anyone considered packaging dumb-init or tini for use in Fedora/CentOS/RHEL?

[Scott McCarty <smccarty redhat com>]

I am skeptical of any "resource" argument against systemd. Are you 
seeing some actually impact to performance that is causing problems? As 
for unit files, they are rediculously easy. Much easier than figuring 
out how to start a daemon properly by reading documentation.

I don't have a strong opinion for CentOS/Fedora. But for RHEL, I think 
multiple init systems will just generate more technical questions from 
customers and eat up more sales resources explaining when people should 
use what. Options are great, but confusing, that's why Apple got rid of 
a lot of them...


On 03/06/2017 09:48 PM, Clayton Coleman wrote:
> Zero overhead, defunct process management, proper logging, simplicity, 
> no moving parts, no additional unit file (I don't have unit files).
>
> Turn it around - if I have the command line "ansible-playbook ...", 
> what does systemd get me?
>
> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 9:35 PM, Eric Paris <eparis redhat com 
> <mailto:eparis redhat com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, 2017-03-06 at 21:22 -0500, Clayton Coleman wrote:
>     > They'd be really helpful for cases where you don't want full blown
>     > systemd, but want a long running container that needs to reap
>     > processes.  I don't know that one or the other matters, I have a
>     > slight bias for dumb-init in terms of signal rewriting (a few cases
>     > might need that).
>     >
>     > Anyone using these today?
>
>     What does dumb-init or tini get me that systemd doesn't?

--

Scott McCarty, RHCA

Technical Product Marketing: Containers

Email: smccarty redhat com

Phone: 312-660-3535

Cell: 330-807-1043

Web: http://crunchtools.com

When should you split your application into multiple containers? 
http://red.ht/22xKw9i