- This topic has 19 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated Mar 18-7:34 pm by blur13.
-
Posts
-
blur13
Brian,
I was under the impression that the choice of init implementation only affected the time it takes to boot the system. Once booted, the choice of init should have no effect on performance. This is simply my impression, I could be wrong.
anticapitalista
Brian,
I was under the impression that the choice of init implementation only affected the time it takes to boot the system. Once booted, the choice of init should have no effect on performance. This is simply my impression, I could be wrong.
Modern init systems do more than just boot to desktop.
They are able to monitor what is going on with apps in case they fail and cleanly and quickly deal with it without a catastrophic crash.Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.
antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.
Brian Masinick
Yes, modern init systems do more, plus increase parallel process management.
The init system that our distribution and Devuan object to so much does these things too, but it goes overboard, with
1) handling other system management tasks in addition to the init handling.
2) It’s a binary image so you have to use the specific tools it includes.
3) It was created by a large company that supports major corporations (guess who: Red Hat).Given all of them runit is quite specific to init handling and process management.
Yes, the first task is to start process 1. The other task is process scheduling.--
Brian Masinick
techore
Not really adding to the discussion, but I love runit. It is one of the reasons that I distro-hopped my way to antiX.
blur13
Thank you anticapitalista and Brian for clarifying that! I’ll read up more on init systems and what they actually do.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
