Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

Wow, this sounds really familiar

netsplit

Upstart is a replacement for the init daemon, the process spawned by the kernel that is responsible for starting, supervising and stopping all other processes on the system.

[…]

Why change it?

Running a fixed set of scripts, one after the other, in a particular order has served us reasonably well until now. However as Linux has got better and better at dealing with modern computing (arguably Linux’s removable device support is better than Windows’ now) this approach has begun to have problems.

[…]

How does it differ from Solaris SMF?

SMF is another approach to replacing init developed by Sun for the Solaris operating system. Like initng it’s a dependency-based system, so see above for the differences between those systems and upstart.

SMF’s main focus is serive management; making sure that once services are running, they stay running, and allowing the system administrator to query and modify the states of jobs on the system.

Upstart provides the same set of functionality in this regard, services are respawned when they fail and system administrators can at any time query the state of running services and adjust the state to their liking.

Maybe SMF ought to be open-sourced? Oh, damn, it is already.

Maybe SMF ought to be ported to Linux? Oh, surely not, that’d be heresy. The Slashdot crowd would never wear it.

Comments

9 responses to “Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?”

  1. Jonathan Care
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    Well, if I ever heard of someone actually installing ubuntu without the gorefest that seems to accompany even the simplest tasks, I’d be more impressed.

  2. alecm
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    well it works OK on SPARC, apparently:

    blogs.sun.com/gridthings/entry/ubuntu_on_a_t2000

  3. Chris Samuel
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    No reason why you couldn’t port SMF to Linux, it’s just the whole GPL versus CDDL legal problems that stops things like ZFS getting into the kernel. 🙁

    I’ve used Gentoo’s init dependencies before, they’re OK (parallel system startup is nice), but it’s no great shakes.

    The svcadm thing sounds like Redhat’s chkconfig thingy..

  4. Chris Samuel
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    Er, if you’re having problems then you’re doing it wrong. 🙂

    What gorefest ?

    I’ve installed Ubuntu lots of times on IA32, AMD64, EM64T & PPC (ibook) and not had any issues yet..

  5. alecm
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    >it’s just the whole GPL versus CDDL legal problems that stops things like ZFS getting into the kernel.

    Fine by me, I don’t use any form of Linux any more. It’s just too painful.

    MacOS for Macs, NetBSD for old stuff, and Nevada/SolarisExpress for new stuff. Works great, good integration, saves on anguish.

  6. alecm
    ps

    svcadm is like chkconfig in the way that a ford transit is like a unicycle. 🙂

  7. Chris Samuel
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    From the Ubuntu development website:

    launchpad.net/projects/smf-nexenta

    SMF is the way to manage system services in NexentaOS – GNU/OpenSolaris based distro. The project trying to consolidate an efforts to enable SMF as a default management for Ubuntu packages on OpenSolaris-based deriviations such as NexentaOS.

    But given that this isn’t likely to be tied into the kernel I can’t see a reason why it wouldn’t work on Ubuntu in general..

  8. Chris Samuel
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    > Fine by me, I don’t use any form of Linux any more. > It’s just too painful.

    Strangely enough that’s the same reason I’ve gone off commercial UNIX’s, just too painful to use. Some are far more painful than others though.. 🙂

    OSX is good for making DVD’s and talking to my iPod, but that’s about its limit..

  9. Chris Samuel
    re: Ubuntu trying to replace SyV init?

    Turns out the Ubuntu folks did evaluate SMF as well as Apple’s launchd beforehand:

    wiki.ubuntu.com/ReplacementInit

    […] The four candidates were [WWW] Solaris SMF, [WWW] Apple’s launchd, the LSB initserv/chkconfig tools and [WWW] initNG.

    The first two of these suffer from inescapable licence problems, which is relatively unfortunate as both have features that are somewhat appealing though neither quite fix our problems. Having whichever system we use being adopted as a Linux-wide standard would not be possible if we chose either of these two systems. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *