Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

systemd is destructive

Here you can discuss every aspect of Debian. Note: not for support requests!
Message
Author
User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: systemd is destructive

#41 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

oswaldkelso wrote:Is this true?
Yes, that freezes my Arch [testing] system with the exception of some wall messages every 100s or so -- the system is trying to obey the power switch but is obviously pause()d...

No different to a fork bomb really.
Job wrote:how is your performance?
Seems fine, no different to booting with systemd, AFAICT.

I should note that the box is *not* systemd free, it just has sysvinit running as PID1.

As an aside, I really don't understand why those who claim that systemd violates the UNIX way then embrace sysvint happily, the latter transgresses the "do one thing well" rule in exactly the same way as is claimed for systemd :?

sysvinit must die

:mrgreen:
deadbang

User avatar
GarryRicketson
Posts: 5644
Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
Location: Durango, Mexico

Re: systemd is destructive

#42 Post by GarryRicketson »

There are simple commands that will crash a systemV init system as well,
It is good to be aware of them, so as not to type them in at the command prompt.
In fact one is considerably shorter.
I would post it here, but there might be somebody silly enough to
try it. It has 5 letters or symbols.
So does that mean systemV is destructive as well ?
The destructive element is more the person between the chair and the keyboard.
And not systemd or systemV


deborah-and-ian
Posts: 182
Joined: 2016-07-13 08:40

Re: systemd is destructive

#44 Post by deborah-and-ian »

HuangLao wrote:and yet you found the time to comment on said thread.
It's hard not to which scares me on a different level. :lol:
Debian GNU/Linux 9 Stretch w/Openbox

Acer Aspire E5-521G
AMD A8-6410 APU
4 GB RAM
integrated AMD Mullins
dedicated AMD Hainan Radeon R5 M240 2 GB
240 GB Toshiba Q300 SSD
Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 ethernet
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9565 wireless

deborah-and-ian
Posts: 182
Joined: 2016-07-13 08:40

Re: systemd is destructive

#45 Post by deborah-and-ian »

oswaldkelso wrote:https://www.agwa.name/blog/post/how_to_ ... _one_tweet

How to Crash Systemd in One Tweet

The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd:

Is this true? Any one feeling brave enough or have a spare machine to test it on

Code: Select all

NOTIFY_SOCKET=/run/systemd/notify systemd-notify ""
Tried it on Jessie. The simple command doesn't work, but the while loop proposed in another link crashes systemd here too. So, later today I'm going to look for a bug report. See how I didn't connect this to the NWO, Illuminati and the Lizard People, but am opting instead to do something constructive?
Debian GNU/Linux 9 Stretch w/Openbox

Acer Aspire E5-521G
AMD A8-6410 APU
4 GB RAM
integrated AMD Mullins
dedicated AMD Hainan Radeon R5 M240 2 GB
240 GB Toshiba Q300 SSD
Realtek RTL8111/8168/8411 ethernet
Qualcomm Atheros QCA9565 wireless

User avatar
debiman
Posts: 3063
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: systemd is destructive

#46 Post by debiman »

oswaldkelso wrote:How to Crash Systemd in One Tweet
The following command, when run as any user, will crash systemd
hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!
it must be flawed!

i think that "holds true" for any software, init- , operating system.

User avatar
edbarx
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: systemd is destructive

#47 Post by edbarx »

That command can easily be filtered off.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.

chrissywissy
Posts: 69
Joined: 2011-11-20 07:52

Re: systemd is destructive

#48 Post by chrissywissy »

The OP has effectively admitted that he is just having a rant, as he doesn't want to file a bug report for his particular problem.

I've been using Jessie on two machines at home since it went stable, and am completely happy with it. However, if others find implementation of systemd doesn't work for their usage case they have options.

Everyone likes progress, but few like change....

User avatar
Danielsan
Posts: 659
Joined: 2010-10-10 22:36
Has thanked: 5 times

Re: systemd is destructive

#49 Post by Danielsan »

A bunch of folks forked Debian because systemd so eventually is not so unusual the fact that many people had, have or have been having issues with it.

M51
Posts: 397
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

Re: systemd is destructive

#50 Post by M51 »

chrissywissy wrote:The OP has effectively admitted that he is just having a rant, as he doesn't want to file a bug report for his particular problem.
...
Everyone likes progress, but few like change....
A rant? Somewhat, yes. systemd pissed me off because it continually f'ed up a system that was doing pretty much nothing except basic filesystem operations and by doing so risking the integrity of the data. But there was another purpose: To let those who may be on the fence about systemd know it has yet another problem.

You may ask: Why not file a bug? Some even have a silly tendency to discount my mention of an issue merely because I didn't file one.
I definitely could. Hell, I'm a developer and I could probably fix it myself. But...let me digress for a second...I'll come back to this.

Your last stement is a sweeping generalization I see a lot: That people who dislike systemd do so because they fear/dislike change (another is that they are old unix greybeards). There are some that may fit this stereotype, but the truth is that there are plenty of people (many developers) who dislike it because they see in it some of the worst traits of badly designed software. The links I've listed previously contain quite a number of well-thought out technical reasons for disliking systemd for those who care to read. I will not repeat them here.

So why not file a bug or fix it myself? Because (to me) it would be wasted effort. From personal experience, fixing bugs in badly designed software generally leads nowhere good...it's like standing on the deck of the Titanic and bailing with a bucket. Simply put: I have better things to do. I am not dependent on systemd in any way, so it doesn't matter to me if it is ever fixed and I'd rather see a better designed alternative get fixes instead.
debiman wrote: hey, i finally succeeded in crashing it!
it must be flawed!

i think that "holds true" for any software, init- , operating system.
Bugs are flaws...yes...and all complex software has them. However a lot of the dislike for systemd is not really about bugs. Bugs are just a symptom. The real problem is a flawed design. Despite some people claiming no evidence is ever given for this, there is plenty of information out there for those who look. I've linked to some of it.
Head_on_a_Stick wrote: As an aside, I really don't understand why those who claim that systemd violates the UNIX way then embrace sysvint happily, the latter transgresses the "do one thing well" rule in exactly the same way as is claimed for systemd :?
It's a matter of scale. systemd is far worse than sysvinit in terms of cyclomatic complexity, which can only be a bad thing for PID1. It also promotes creating crazy-ass dependencies in upstream projects: https://github.com/tmux/tmux/issues/428. But your reply brings up a great point: systemd proponents often paint everything in terms of the false dichotomy between systemd and sysvinit. There are alternatives, many of them better than either. To claim no one is making alternatives to systemd is a flat out lie that gets repeated quite often.

My advice would be for people to read both the pro and con information out there. If you have the background, read the source for systemd and a few of the alternatives. Actually try the alternatives. Decide for yourself and don't let fanbois or haterz make the decision for you.

bdtc1
Posts: 42
Joined: 2015-01-22 09:00

Re: systemd is destructive

#51 Post by bdtc1 »

Regarding filing bugs, the systemd developers have a reputation for ignoring / discounting bug reports. And for not supporting things they don't use themselves.

And the systemd source code can make for some amusing / amazing reading. Even if you don't know how to program, go ahead and glance at some of the source code and look at the internal comments. The numerous "Fix Me" comments are especially interesting. There is some honest humor thrown in as well. I saw a place where they say something like "Huh? Freakout and continue." The code is right on the Debian website.

Really, not everyone wants to give total control of their machines to this software, for several very sensible reasons.

User avatar
dasein
Posts: 7680
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: systemd is destructive

#52 Post by dasein »

M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?
As many (including myself) will attest, filing a bug against systemd is mostly pointless. When one counts (much less examines) the bugs closed as WONTFIX or NOTABUG, it becomes clear that watching paint dry is a far more effective and efficient use of time.

(Sorry, but every time I hear someone say, "file a bug" or "just fork it" regarding systemd, I have to suppress an urge to do bodily harm.)

User avatar
edbarx
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: systemd is destructive

#53 Post by edbarx »

M51 wrote:The real problem is a flawed design. Despite some people claiming no evidence is ever given for this, there is plenty of information out there for those who look. I've linked to some of it.
Flooding people's minds with information certainly never helps. Can you in a few words summarise why systemd has a "flawed design"? A flawed design would be using cast iron for a rotating shaft that has to deliver a powerful torque.

Does anything of the sort exists with systemd? Is it because systemd runs as PID1 with many functions incorporated, that potentially can go wrong bringing down the entire system with them, as PID1's death would terminate the entire running process tree? Is it because systemd uses some extent of 'autonomous system management'?
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.

M51
Posts: 397
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

Re: systemd is destructive

#54 Post by M51 »

edbarx wrote: Flooding people's minds with information certainly never helps.
I completely disagree. It's the one thing that does help.

"The highest ideal of a translation... is achieved when the reader flings it impatiently into the fire, and begins patiently to learn the language for himself."
-- Philip Vellacott

User avatar
dasein
Posts: 7680
Joined: 2011-03-04 01:06
Location: Terra Incantationum

Re: systemd is destructive

#55 Post by dasein »

Love that quote. Stealing it.

The larger point is that a superficial "understanding" of a(ny) complex, multideterminate issue is indistinguishable from no understanding whatsoever.

User avatar
edbarx
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: systemd is destructive

#56 Post by edbarx »

dasein wrote:Love that quote. Stealing it.

The larger point is that a superficial "understanding" of a(ny) complex, multideterminate issue is indistinguishable from no understanding whatsoever.
Here is another one by Albert Einstein, love it.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Dasein, anyone who can explain a complex issue in simple terms cannot be said to have a superficial understanding. With a superficial understanding one speaks only non-sense.

So, we agree.
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.

M51
Posts: 397
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

Re: systemd is destructive

#57 Post by M51 »

edbarx wrote:Here is another one by Albert Einstein, love it.
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Paraphrasing Einstein: "“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.”
edbarx wrote: Dasein, anyone who can explain a complex issue in simple terms cannot be said to have a superficial understanding.
Sure they can, just listen to Donald Trump explain anything.

Reducing truly complex issues to soundbites makes for great arguments and flamewars, but does nothing to advance actual understanding.

As I said previously: "The links I've listed previously contain quite a number of well-thought out technical reasons for disliking systemd for those who care to read. I will not repeat them here."

What part of this didn't you understand? The material is already summarized. Go fish somewhere else.

User avatar
edbarx
Posts: 5401
Joined: 2007-07-18 06:19
Location: 35° 50 N, 14 º 35 E
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: systemd is destructive

#58 Post by edbarx »

M51 wrote:Sure they can, just listen to Donald Trump explain anything.
Clearly, we are writing about different types of "explanations".
Debian == { > 30, 000 packages }; Debian != systemd
The worst infection of all, is a false sense of security!
It is hard to get away from CLI tools.

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: systemd is destructive

#59 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?
The point of my original post in this thread was *not* that this was a bug that needed reporting, it was that the behavior could be easily tuned to your preference.

In this specific case, it is interesting to note that the upstream release of systemd from freedesktop.org actually defaults to KillUserProcesses=yes but Debian reverses this.
deadbang

M51
Posts: 397
Joined: 2013-05-13 01:38

Re: systemd is destructive

#60 Post by M51 »

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
M51 wrote:You may ask: Why not file a bug?
The point of my original post in this thread was *not* that this was a bug that needed reporting, it was that the behavior could be easily tuned to your preference.

In this specific case, it is interesting to note that the upstream release of systemd from freedesktop.org actually defaults to KillUserProcesses=yes but Debian reverses this.
If you read my reply, the part about filing a bug wasn't addressed to you.

I appreciated you were trying to help, but the KillUserProcesses setting is of no relevance to the problems systemd was causing, thus making your claims about the behavior being "easily tuned" pointless. It is a bug within systemd.

Locked