Once again about pros/cons of Systemd and Upstart

Upstart advantages.

1. Upstart is simpler for porting on the systems other than Linux while systemd is very rigidly tied on Linux kernel opportunities.Adaptation of Upstart for work in Debian GNU/kFreeBSD and Debian GNU/Hurd looks quite real task that it is impossible to tell about systemd;

2. Upstart is more habitual for the Debian developers, many of which in combination participate in development of Ubuntu. Two members of Technical committee Debian (Steve Langasek and Colin Watson) are a part of group of the Upstart developers.

3. Upstart simpler and is more lightweight than systemd, as a result, less code – less mistakes; Upstart is suitable for integration with a code of system daemons better.The policy of systemd is reduced to that authors of daemons have to be arranged under upstream (it is necessary to provide the analog compatible at the level of the external interface for replacement of the systemd component) instead of upstream provided comfortable means for developers of daemons.

4. Upstart is simpler in respect of maintenance and maintenance of packages; Community of the Upstart developers are more openly for collaboration. In case of systemd it is necessary to take the systemd methods for granted and to follow them, for example, to support the separate section “/usr” or
to use only absolute paths for start. Shortcomings of Upstart belong to category of reparable problems; in current state of Upstart it is already completely ready for use in Debian 8.0 (Jessie).

5. In Upstart more habitual model of definition of a configuration of services, unlike systemd where settings in / etc block the basic settings of units determined in hierarchy/lib. Use of Upstart will allow to support a sound mind of the competition which will promote development of various approaches and will keep developers in a tone.

Systemd advantages

1. Without essential processing of architecture of Upstart won’t be able to catch up with systemd on functionality (for example, the turned model of start of dependences (instead of start of all demanded dependences at start of the set service,start of service in Upstart is carried out at receipt of an event about availability for service of dependences);

2. Use of ptrace disturbs application of upstart-works for such daemons as avahi, apache and postfix;possibility of activation of service only upon the appeal to a socket, but not on indirect signs,such as dependence on activation of other socket; lack of reliable tracking of conditions of the carried-out processes.

3. Systemd contains rather self-sufficient set of components that allows to concentrate attention on elimination of problems,but not completion of a configuration with Upstart to the opportunities which are already present at Systemd. For example, in Upstart are absent:- support of the detailed status and maintaining the log of work of daemons,multiple activation through sockets,activation through sockets for IPv6 and UDP,flexible mechanism of restriction of resources.

4. Use of systemd will allow to pull together among themselves and to unify control facilities various distribution kits. Systemd is already passed to RHEL 7.X,CentOS 7.X, Fedora,openSUSE,Sabayon,Mandriva,Arch Linux,

5. At systemd there is more active, large and versatile community of developers into which engineers of the SUSE and Red Hat companies enter. When using upstart the distribution kit becomes dependent on Canonical without which support of upstart remains without developers and will be doomed to stagnation.Participation in development of upstart requires signing of the agreement on transfer of property rights of the Canonical company. The Red Hat company not without cause decided on replacement of upstart by systemd.Debian project was already compelled to migrate for systemd. For realization of some opportunities of loading in Upstart it is required to use fragments of shell-scripts that does initialization process less reliable and more labor-consuming for debugging.

6. Support of systemd is realized in GNOME and KDE which more and more actively use possibilities of systemd (for example, means for management of the user sessions and start of each appendix in separate cgroup). GNOME continues to be positioned as the main environment of Debian, but the relations between the Ubuntu/Upstart and GNOME projects had obviously intense character.

References

http://www.opennet.ru/opennews/art.shtml?num=38762

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: