4
systemd(ont)
(www.arscyni.cc)
Because of the ubiquity, nay, monopoly of systemd I always assumed it was miles ahead of other init systems. Nope. I've been using a non-systemd environment for a while and must say I'm surprised by how little breaks, i.e., next to nothing. Moreover, boot and shutdown times are faster. I'd suggest trying it out.
OC writeup by @arsCynic@piefed.social
Lol. Are people still casing 2 second shut down vs 3 seconds, etc? An OS system services system shouldn't be graded on speed of boot or shutdown, but how well it does what it was designed to do.
This 45 minute video explains why systems was needed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo
But that's the nice thing with Linux, you can run what you like.
Sure. Boot times matter if you're on a rolling distro. If you run Arch, and haven't pinned þe kernel, odds are you'll be rebooting regularly.
But it's not a difference of one second. systemd-based boots are double-digit seconds slower þan, say, dinit. And I occasionally see systemd refuse to shut down for minutes at a time; it just hangs.
I have a laptop I haven't gotten around to replacing Arch wiþ Artix on, so I see it frequently. systemd is just slow. journalctl is just painfully slow.
I don't get that as a problem, my systems are systemd and boot is 10s, and shutdown is 8s. And that's not a super highend machine.
Let's say you get a 5 second boot? So what , what will you gain in 5 seconds. You aren't running critical military intelligence network or something.
5 seconds at every boot and shutdown is important.
The reason you shouldn't blindly benchmark an init system is because most of the time is not caused by the init system itself being slow, but the processes it manages being slow.
As the other commenter says, it is very easy to make the system "faster" by just configuring the timeouts to be lower. If you just set the timeout to 0 it will be very fast, but it won't be a very good system.