It is currently Sun Nov 17, 2019 8:35 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:09 am
Posts: 471
Somebody told me it was easy to remove systemd from Debian Stretch.

Code:
rahsennor@home:~$ sudo apt-get install sysvinit-core
[...]
rahsennor@home:~$ sudo cp /usr/share/sysvinit/inittab /etc/inittab
rahsennor@home:~$ reboot
[...]
rahsennor@home:~$ ping 127.0.0.1
PING 127.0.0.1 (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
From 10.194.120.2 icmp_seq=1 Destination Net Prohibited

:|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 7:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 11:12 am
Posts: 8681
Location: Seattle
... Something didn't set up net interface "lo", I think...

I think package:ifupdown is the canonical debian sysv way to manage network interfaces?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:28 pm
Posts: 4213
Location: A world gone mad
Every time I have tried to remove systemd from a system, Ubuntu, ArchLinux or otherwise, it's never worked. Ever. It's safe to say the folks maintaining these distros do not actually ensure that things work without systemd (for the same reasons they introduced/migrated to systemd to begin with).

I gave up trying to fight it and grudgingly accepted it. And when I say accepted, I mean literally I grind my teeth and curse even more than normal. My last detailed systemd "ordeal" took me something like 12 or 13 hours to solve/rectify properly -- stuff Upstart and shell scripts did without a hitch.

Welcome to Linux in 2018. Thanks, Lennart and Red Hat! You're truly improving Linux distros in ways that classic init and rc scripts, including OpenRC, couldn't ever solve! You didn't really need sshd, did you? (and yes I'm aware that's technically a polkit bug, but polkit = more Red Hat trash). The more I see stuff like this, the more I realise a lot of this tripe relates to the desktop world (a world I don't particularly look at; only server).

As for your actual issue: it's very possible that there's some kind of network ACL or policy (think SELinux, polkit, etc.) that is causing the issue. If a firewall is involved (ex. iptables), then maybe interface lo needs to be permitted; the fact the kernel is returning ICMP type 3, code 9 (destination net prohibited (this is not the same as unreachable, nor unknown!)) makes me think that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2018 8:54 am
Posts: 145
Location: Edmonton, Canada
I mean, there is always Devuan. It would be easier to use that, than trying to migrate Debian on sysvinit.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:09 am
Posts: 471
To be clear, I already know what the problem is. lo isn't up. The question is why it isn't. And I just don't care enough to find out. All those hours would be better spent learning to speak BSD.

Whether you believe the NSA conspiracy theories or not, systemd is malicious. It's narcissism in executable form. Any maintainer who includes it in their distro is an accomplice to Red Hat's destruction of Linux.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:28 pm
Posts: 4213
Location: A world gone mad
Rahsennor wrote:
All those hours would be better spent learning to speak BSD.

As someone who uses FreeBSD (and even been a ports committer) since 1997 when I started with 2.2.7, my advice: don't be fooled. Stay with Linux, no matter how bad systemd is. Switching from Linux to FreeBSD is a lot like people who, in an emotional state, decided to switch from Windows to OS X (or vice-versa): all you're doing is choosing to experience different problems. If that's what you want, then yeah go for it. I could talk for days about FreeBSD's shortcomings, and they tend to be major -- not to mention, almost all things even minor Linux distros solved long ago (such as not having a non-package-managed base system). I'm still waiting for them to fix load averages, which they broke between 9.x and 10.x (and remains broken -- going on 3+ years now for me, but 6+ for others). The only reason big companies (networking, Apple, etc.) base their stuff on FreeBSD is because of the license. I don't know much about the other major BSDs (OpenBSD and NetBSD) other than what their main goals/focuses are (security and arch diversity, respectfully), but I tend to recommend people try DragonflyBSD instead of FreeBSD, since Matt Dillon is incredibly responsive and the community is filled with good/smart people (I recognise many old FreeBSD ports committers who left the project and got involved with DFBSD).

I've tried Devuan -- it's exactly as I expected: neglected. Everyone's needs are different, but mine: I wanted a non-systemd Linux that offered ZFS. Devuan did, but the init scripts were horribly neglected (to the point of it defeating use of ZFS), but the maintainer of the ZFS bits hasn't done anything with his problem reports for years.

You really have to use a "major" Linux distro to ensure that you get good support, which is mainly why I stick with Ubuntu. I'd have switched my home FreeBSD box over to Linux by now but I'm still waiting on ZFS on Linux to address this idiocy (you can see my thoughts near the bottom).

But all of this said: yes, systemd is awful and brought substantially more problems to the table than it did solutions. At least Lennart isn't screwing around in kernel space.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 2:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:09 am
Posts: 471
koitsu wrote:
As someone who uses FreeBSD (and even been a ports committer) since 1997 when I started with 2.2.7, my advice: don't be fooled. Stay with Linux, no matter how bad systemd is. Switching from Linux to FreeBSD is a lot like people who, in an emotional state, decided to switch from Windows to OS X (or vice-versa): all you're doing is choosing to experience different problems. If that's what you want, then yeah go for it. I could talk for days about FreeBSD's shortcomings, and they tend to be major -- not to mention, almost all things even minor Linux distros solved long ago (such as not having a non-package-managed base system). I'm still waiting for them to fix load averages, which they broke between 9.x and 10.x (and remains broken -- going on 3+ years now for me, but 6+ for others). The only reason big companies (networking, Apple, etc.) base their stuff on FreeBSD is because of the license. I don't know much about the other major BSDs (OpenBSD and NetBSD) other than what their main goals/focuses are (security and arch diversity, respectfully), but I tend to recommend people try DragonflyBSD instead of FreeBSD, since Matt Dillon is incredibly responsive and the community is filled with good/smart people (I recognise many old FreeBSD ports committers who left the project and got involved with DFBSD).

Actually I've been eyeing OpenBSD for a while now. What I want the most is stability, and I've heard it delivers on that front. I've also used NetBSD before, and mostly liked what I saw; it was a lot more hands-on oldschool than Linux, but I don't mind having to do a bit more work setting up, as long as it stays set up.

But thanks for the heads up. I was looking at FreeBSD for the Wine support, but I think I'll check out Gentoo or Slackware instead now. Just gotta get a box put together so I can try them all out and learn the ropes without accidentally nuking my daily driver.

koitsu wrote:
I've tried Devuan -- it's exactly as I expected: neglected. Everyone's needs are different, but mine: I wanted a non-systemd Linux that offered ZFS. Devuan did, but the init scripts were horribly neglected (to the point of it defeating use of ZFS), but the maintainer of the ZFS bits hasn't done anything with his problem reports for years.

You really have to use a "major" Linux distro to ensure that you get good support, which is mainly why I stick with Ubuntu. I'd have switched my home FreeBSD box over to Linux by now but I'm still waiting on ZFS on Linux to address this idiocy (you can see my thoughts near the bottom).

I've heard rave reviews of ZFS but I'm not enough of a server buff to tell the fluff from the features. You obviously rate it highly enough to base your choice of distro on it, so should I be looking into it too? What does it do that other filesystems don't?

koitsu wrote:
At least Lennart isn't screwing around in kernel space.

Not for lack of trying, unfortunately.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 9:40 am 
Offline
Formerly 65024U

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:57 pm
Posts: 2269
If you bork moving from systemd to anything else, you have one shot, since it boots the entire system. (When installed) I think it's much more sane to just pick something that doesn't use it.


On the BSD front, it's easy to have uptime when you don't support anything. They ever get uptime on a stock ryzen processor? Haha, nope. It crashes randomly. Linux, has been fine for a year and from launch, minus the gcc segfault issue I RMA'd for, which also got me better RAM speed.


I do wish there was more in Linux and in everything that was less complicated. Authentication, IPC, etc. should be in the kernel as of 2000. Hell, maybe not even the kernel, but in the C standard API. No policykit and all this userspace junk for one easy task that should be standard for the computer in general to support.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:28 pm
Posts: 4213
Location: A world gone mad
Rahsennor wrote:
I've heard rave reviews of ZFS but I'm not enough of a server buff to tell the fluff from the features. You obviously rate it highly enough to base your choice of distro on it, so should I be looking into it too? What does it do that other filesystems don't?

Not exactly. Some clarification:

I don't "rate it (ZFS) high enough", it's that I know what my needs and preferences are, and that I'm a "storage" guy (I often work with disks and storage protocols like ATA/SATA). I always recommend that people just stick with known/working/established filesystems (like FFS/UFS or ext4) as defaults. Hell, even I use those for boot/root filesystems (cold day in hell before I ever use ZFS on root!).

I generally do not recommend ZFS on FreeBSD to people because of all of the caveats involved -- particularly the ARC and how the underlying VM (virtual memory, not virtual machine!) ends up behaving with the ARC. Do not let the fact that the OS installer gives you ZFS as a choice sway your mind (when this was introduced, I actually argued against it). Some examples of caveats: you *must* do system tuning to get ZFS on FreeBSD to behave itself (particularly regarding ARC usage), snapshots are still known to cause stability problems for some people, if using compression you should use lz4 and nothing else (otherwise suffer from a system that "hitches" or "stalls"), there have been reports of problems with send/recv, and do not use dedup no matter how tempted you may be. The point is that when ZFS "issues" or "quirks" come up, they are often very severe and painful in nature, and nearly impossible for a user to figure out; an inexperienced user would have absolutely no idea what to do (and many wouldn't even think the issue/quirk may be caused by filesystem choice!). I happen to have spend many (painful) years with the thing so I've learned what to watch out for or avoid, but What ZFS brings to the table that spoils users (myself included) are easy/simple volume and filesystem management (which includes RAID-like functionality) and a checksumming filesystem; once you get used to the former, doing things the old way feels tedious and annoying.

I used to have several FreeBSD machines all over the place -- maybe 12 or 13 at the peak -- but only 2 of those used ZFS (I stuck with standard FFS/UFS everywhere else, and intentionally did not use SUJ (softupdates + journalling; SU is fine, it's the journalling part you should avoid)). These days I only have two machines, and I'm trying to get both of them moved to Linux. Only one of them uses ZFS, and it is very important that I stick with ZFS.

In comparison (since it's another filesystem that offers volume management and is new), Btrfs is a joke. I've played with it on a VM (virtual machine) a couple times and I just cannot get over how absolutely ridiculous it is. There are so many WTFs about its behaviour, particularly in administration, that I question why it even exists. ZFS's administrative model feels very natural/sane and is hard to beat. In contrast, LVM is a nightmare, often because of the PV vs. VG vs. LV terminology and overall design; it confuses even senior administrators who choose to use it (I often recommend mdadm for that exact reason); as a storage guy I'm "okay" with LVM.

I didn't "choose FreeBSD because of ZFS". I've been using FreeBSD since 2.2.7 as stated (that's roughly mid-1998). Prior to that I used Linux -- I started with 0.99pl45, and used to test things like CSLIP/SLIP drivers for kernel and userland developers, and I moved away from Linux in the mid-90s (Linux 1.3.x days) because I had grown extremely tired of how chaotic the kernel was (mainly: stock Linux required patches for major bugfixes, which came from multiple people (Alan Cox and several others), so you had patches atop patches and often did not apply cleanly, plus the Linux kernel at the time was, from a security perspective, absolutely nightmarish). But prior to Linux I was actually brought up on SunOS 4.x. Anyway, ZFS was introduced to FreeBSD in version 7.x (so roughly 2008), and I started playing with it for the purpose of wanting something RAID-like for both a server in a datacenter that did backups for the rest of the network, and for a home NAS/SAN for personal use; I had experience with ccd and vinum from my day job, and thought ZFS might make my life easier -- it both did and did not. The situation has not changed in over 10 years (though, with 9.x there was a "sweet spot" in FreeBSD ZFS behaviour that felt stable and understood; they've screwed with it in 10.x and later, so now things are precarious again).

It's funny, because ZFS on Solaris or Illumos -- where I spent time with the former for many years as part of my day job -- "just works", all because key parts of the kernel and VM were tweaked and designed with ZFS in mind.

As for ZFS on Linux: it's new material for me. I have no idea what its ARC or VM behaviour is like. But so far, playing around on a VM (virtual machine) with it, I've found several things that differ from FreeBSD and Solaris ZFS that make me a bit wary. At around the time I was looking into it, distros started adopting systemd, which threw a large wrench into my plans to migrate off FreeBSD to Linux.

As for what ZFS brings to the table? You can see Wikipedia or use a search engine and find out for yourself. Just do not forget about the caveats (at least on FreeBSD) I mentioned above; basically no one ever discusses those in blog posts, Wikipedia, etc., while if you peruse the mailing lists for the past several years you'll see exactly what I'm talking about.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: systemd[erp]
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2018 4:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 3:09 am
Posts: 471
3gengames wrote:
I think it's much more sane to just pick something that doesn't use it.

My point exactly.

3gengames wrote:
On the BSD front, it's easy to have uptime when you don't support anything.

It only has to support what I actually use. And I use cheap, generic stuff no less than four years old. Less trouble that way, even on Linux.

koitsu wrote:
I always recommend that people just stick with known/working/established filesystems (like FFS/UFS or ext4) as defaults.

That's what I have been doing, and you've thoroughly convinced me to stick with it. Fascinating read, but definitely not my speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group