LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-15-2017, 01:55 PM   #1
patrick295767
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Distribution: FreeBSD, Linux, Slackware, LFS, Gparted
Posts: 657

Rep: Reputation: 137Reputation: 137
Danger of SystemD as serious Memory Hog


Hi,

The problem with SystemD is really serious. It takes a lot of memory, endanger the System, is not *BSD*, not *UNIX*, against elite C programmer basics, failing to reboot machines, making security holes, making user unhappy, may slow down machines, making SysInitV in mailing list a bad guy (*which is NOT*),...

Anyhow, SystemD is a serious Memory Hog, will take always more and more.

A Wish: Please guys, *REMOVE SystemD* from all Linux distributions!

You can leave SystemD for Windows!

Last edited by patrick295767; 12-21-2017 at 03:16 PM.
 
Old 12-15-2017, 02:21 PM   #2
gnashley
Amigo developer
 
Registered: Dec 2003
Location: Germany
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 4,890

Rep: Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569Reputation: 569
I'm quite sure that all the distros will immediately obey your directive, master. I personally never got around to adding systemd to my personal build -so your conclusions can't be all wrong. Maybe it's just the way you present your idea that is not working. I see you use LFS, among others, so you should be perfectly capable of rolling your own distro without a hitch. Why not try that? I've found it to be 100% effective at calming that urge to come down on other when they don't do things the way I want them to.
 
Old 12-16-2017, 08:22 PM   #3
frankbell
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Virginia, USA
Distribution: Slackware, Debian, Mageia, and whatever VMs I happen to be playing with
Posts: 13,689
Blog Entries: 22

Rep: Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600Reputation: 3600
I did a quick web search: it appears that the element of SystemD that continually uses the most memory is the journalctl component, that is, the logging function. I did see several instances of persons complaining that SystemD was using too much memory, but none of them listed adverse effects other than that they thought the number was too high.

I am not a fan of SystemD, but I have used a number of distros that have implemented it, because, unless you use only Slackware, a Slackware derivative, or a BSD, it's pretty hard to avoid any more.

I've not encountered any adverse performance effects from SystemD's implementation, but I must say I am neither a gamer nor a video editor, though I do edit audio from time to time.

My own opinion is that there are many reasons to dislike SystemD, almost all of the philosophical, but adverse effect on performance is not one of them.

Just my two cents.

Last edited by frankbell; 12-16-2017 at 08:24 PM.
 
Old 12-16-2017, 08:28 PM   #4
Timothy Miller
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Location: Arizona, USA
Distribution: Debian, Fedora, Arch, & KDE Neon
Posts: 2,760

Rep: Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbell View Post
I did a quick web search: it appears that the element of SystemD that continually uses the most memory is the journalctl component, that is, the logging function. I did see several instances of persons complaining that SystemD was using too much memory, but none of them listed adverse effects other than that they thought the number was too high.

I am not a fan of SystemD, but I have used a number of distros that have implemented it, because, unless you use only Slackware, a Slackware derivative, or a BSD, it's pretty hard to avoid any more.

I've not encountered any adverse performance effects from SystemD's implementation, but I must say I am neither a gamer nor a video editor, though I do edit audio from time to time.

My own opinion is that there are many reasons to dislike SystemD, almost all of the philosophical, but adverse effect on performance is not one of them.

Just my two cents.
Very nearly mirrors my thoughts exactly. I dislike SystemD (for philosophical reasons mostly but also the practical reason of having a binary journal), but all my systems have it because it's just not worth the work for me to avoid it (I prefer KDE plasma as my DE and dislike managing Slackware so very very much). I have at least a couple pretty low powered systems (a chromebook and a cloudbook) and even with full plasma and systemd, perfomrance is still quite acceptable on these machines. While I would never argue FOR systemd, I don't see it being that big a deal for most people as it currently sets (IE - using it just as an init system, not implementing it's networking stack, etc.).
 
Old 12-17-2017, 03:20 AM   #5
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX, NuTyX
Posts: 1,955
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by frankbell View Post
I am not a fan of SystemD, but I have used a number of distros that have implemented it, because, unless you use only Slackware, a Slackware derivative, or a BSD, it's pretty hard to avoid any more.
Well, there's also Crux, AntiX, Gentoo, Devuan....
 
Old 12-17-2017, 06:41 AM   #6
syg00
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Distribution: Lots ...
Posts: 16,734

Rep: Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471Reputation: 2471
Yawn ... seems a discussion from years ago - extract head from sand.

The real world has passed on, and has more important things to worry about than troll-bait.
 
Old 12-17-2017, 07:56 AM   #7
TB0ne
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Distribution: SuSE, RedHat, Slack,CentOS
Posts: 20,270

Rep: Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902Reputation: 4902
Quote:
Originally Posted by syg00 View Post
Yawn ... seems a discussion from years ago - extract head from sand. The real world has passed on, and has more important things to worry about than troll-bait.
Indeed, but the OP of this thread appears to excel at troll threads.
 
Old 12-17-2017, 11:33 AM   #8
DavidMcCann
LQ Veteran
 
Registered: Jul 2006
Location: London
Distribution: CentOS, Xubuntu
Posts: 5,000

Rep: Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651Reputation: 1651
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrick295767 View Post
SystemD is not *BSD*, not *UNIX*, against elite programmer basics
So what? Unix is dead and BSD is a niche market. Servers, supercomputers, embedded computers, smart phones mostly run Linux. As for "elite programmers", I wouldn't presume to say what they do: would you care to tell us how you know?
 
Old 12-17-2017, 02:57 PM   #9
Mara
Moderator
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: Grenoble
Distribution: Debian
Posts: 9,657

Rep: Reputation: 210Reputation: 210Reputation: 210
Moderator note: Please avoid calling names to people when when you do not agree with their opinions or with the threads they post. We're respectful to each other at LQ. Thank you!
 
Old 12-19-2017, 11:35 AM   #10
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166
Something else to consider is that SystemD's facilities are designed with the realization that "Linux/Unix computers are not isolated anymore." In many places of the world there are now large warehouse-sized buildings stuffed with racks containing hundreds of Linux machines. It's suddenly a very big deal how those hundreds of machines do basic things like "logging." The venerable facilities that were first cooked-up for an isolated PDP-7 at Bell Labs simply don't do what these mass-deployments require.

Since those "hundreds of machines" very often use standard distros, or copies made from them, it is important that the more-advanced options afforded by SystemD are available by default.

Although some people out there appear to be quite loathe to accept it, the "SystemD" project really was conceived, and then deployed in mainstream distros, in response to customer demand. (Other Unix-based operating systems, such as Apple's OS/X, quietly did away with the 'venerable' subsystems also, in their case with "LaunchD.") They really don't care if it uses memory because memory can be added with the click of a control-system console. They need it for what it does for them. They need it to make their machines more manageable: the difference in labor costs alone quickly adds up to "real money."

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-19-2017 at 11:37 AM.
 
Old 12-19-2017, 11:47 AM   #11
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX, NuTyX
Posts: 1,955
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848
But then what about us desktop users? Why should we have foisted on us something that may be brilliant for distributed server processing but is no bloody use to us and only makes our systems more complex and therefore less easy to understand and more likely to go wrong. Why not have systemd (that's the correct spelling by the way; it's the system daemon) in the server versions of those distros that are server-oriented (Debian, Red Hat, Centos) and not muscling in everywhere.
 
Old 12-19-2017, 01:57 PM   #12
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 9,078
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166Reputation: 3166
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
But then what about us desktop users? Why should we have foisted on us something that may be brilliant for distributed server processing but is no bloody use to us and only makes our systems more complex and therefore less easy to understand and more likely to go wrong. Why not have systemd (that's the correct spelling by the way; it's the system daemon) in the server versions of those distros that are server-oriented (Debian, Red Hat, Centos) and not muscling in everywhere.
I think that the short-answer to this, Hazel, is that distro publishers do not want to have to deal with two (radically ...) different ways for their products to operate! They sell one version of their distro, in most cases, and it gets used in a lot of different situations. It would greatly increase their costs to try to do it two ways, just to pander (ahem ...) to the small group of people who actually are aware of the difference and who actually care.

I mean nothing at all "personal" about that statement. Don't read one single thing into it. Let's just talk business. Put on your "CTO hat" and follow along.

What investment (in time, stability, distro release-cycles and so on) would be called-for, what are the business risks associated with it, and what is the return-on-investment (ROI)? I would very frankly argue that the business risks are very high indeed, both in labor-costs and especially technical-complexity, and that the ROI is simply not there. Even though the product does is not (always ...) sold, it's still a product and it's still a business. The people who are doing the work are taking home salaries. And they have thousands if not millions of customers (machines) to consider: billions of dollars' worth of business flows through their systems every day. Instability would be catastrophic, world-wide.

In my judgment and IMHO, the business decision that they made is the only one that is at-all defensible. The argument to support both systemd and init, and the argument to continue to support init and its brethren at all, is, in my judgment, "unsustainable for the business." Individual customers of course have the source-code and they can individually do as they wish – but the business will bear no responsibility for what they individually choose to do. And, the business consciously will choose not to offer any sort of "package" to do this for them, because these customers would of course expect the business to support the use-case where that package had been installed, and this is contradictory to the business's chosen course.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 12-19-2017 at 02:05 PM.
 
Old 12-19-2017, 02:21 PM   #13
hazel
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: Debian, Crux, LFS, AntiX, NuTyX
Posts: 1,955
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848Reputation: 848
OK, that explains the behaviour of Red Hat. But the only other distro that I know of which belongs to a business is Ubuntu. Debian and Arch are community projects. So I ask again, why push systemd down everybody's throats?
 
Old 12-19-2017, 03:10 PM   #14
cynwulf
Senior Member
 
Registered: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,088
Blog Entries: 5

Rep: Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139Reputation: 1139
Like a lot of "modern" software, systemd had been marketed and forced into the 'food chain' by Red Hat and others (such as gnome project). The publicly stated goals of the project was to make systemd a forced dependency and to try to ensure that distributions and users have little choice but to adopt it. It's also designed to be difficult for developers to avoid. You can avoid it, but you might have to be prepared to do some work for yourself, build from source, etc... This isn't 'propaganda' - just read the documentation and especially Poettering's various writing on the subject.

One of the marketing successes of systemd is in convincing some that it's features or methods were not available previously...

But the systemd argument could go on forever. I stopped using Linux quite a while before systemd became the default in Debian, so I've never really been troubled by it.

As I see it there are Linux distributions without systemd - the arrival of systemd drove the development of such distributions. Providing they have the userbase to support them, the interest and the donations, they can only thrive.

Failing that there are the *BSDs which are only getting better and staying well away from such software.

Code:
% uname -a
DragonFly cynwulf.dragonfly.local 5.0-RELEASE DragonFly v5.0.2-RELEASE #1: Sun Dec 10 18:37:15 GMT 2017     root@cynwulf.dragonfly.local:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/X86_64_GENERIC  x86_64

Last edited by cynwulf; 12-19-2017 at 03:13 PM.
 
Old 12-19-2017, 10:05 PM   #15
Drakeo
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2008
Location: Urbana IL
Distribution: Slackware, Slacko,
Posts: 3,492
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 426Reputation: 426Reputation: 426Reputation: 426Reputation: 426
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
OK, that explains the behaviour of Red Hat. But the only other distro that I know of which belongs to a business is Ubuntu. Debian and Arch are community projects. So I ask again, why push systemd down everybody's throats?
That is where the money has gone. So developers are making a product.
I care less.It is all tools. As a Slacker systemd was never the issue. It is about the Slackware team and there commitment to stability.
If gone either way stability was my choice.

Yet to find one distro as stable. Yet I have to use others for projects.

Why would the head of the trouble shooting and help desk for IBM Europe be Slacker slash slackware developer.
Stability

Last edited by Drakeo; 12-19-2017 at 10:07 PM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
amarok might be memory hog jdwilder Linux - Software 0 07-09-2006 05:13 PM
Firefox - SUCH a memory hog !! wearetheborg Linux - Software 6 06-04-2006 03:56 PM
Danger, Danger, Danger. Dead Rat Killed My Slack vdemuth General 2 07-12-2004 03:54 PM
Memory Hog? AekaGSR Linux - Newbie 2 07-04-2003 10:55 AM
memory hog jct842 Linux - Newbie 2 02-28-2002 12:20 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:35 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration