So,

I’ve never bothered with this before, since systemD seems to work just fine.

But I did this year stop using Ubuntu for most of my hosting needs and moved to Alpine or Debian, depending on what I’m doing.

So it makes sense to optimize even more. I read up a little about why people dislike systemD. Good reasons if mainly you’re worried that it’s doing too much and is too heavy.

So what are the alternatives that work with both Alpine and Debian? What are people using? Is it relatively easy to move from systemD to whatever is your alternative?

Thanks!

  • Badabinski@kbin.earth
    7·
    13 hours ago

    Debian is superior for server tasks. musl is designed to optimize for smaller binaries on disk. Memory is a secondary goal, and cpu time is a non-goal. musl isn’t meant to be fast, it’s meant to be small and easily embedded. Those are great things if you need to run in a network/disk constrained environment, but for a server? Why waste CPU cycles using a libc that is, by design, less time efficient?

    EDIT: I had to fight this fight at my job. We had hundreds of thousands of Alpine containers running, and switching them to glibc-based containers resulted in quantifiable cloud spend savings. I’m not saying musl (or alpine) is bad, just that you have horses for courses.

    • 486@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      13 minutes ago

      Debian is superior for server tasks. musl is designed to optimize for smaller binaries on disk. Memory is a secondary goal, and cpu time is a non-goal. musl isn’t meant to be fast, it’s meant to be small and easily embedded.

      I’ve used Alpine on servers a lot and didn’t notice any performance difference when compared to glibc in the vast majority of cases. This performance comparison even suggests that musl is quite a bit faster in some cases and in most instances it is at least as fast as glibc, which matches my experience.