Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Fedora 20 Released

timothy posted 1 year,15 hours | from the is-it-a-true-fedora? dept.

Red Hat Software 147

sfcrazy writes "The Fedora Project has announced the release of Fedora 20, code named Heisenbug (release notes). Fedora 20 is dedicated to Seth Vidal, the lead developer of Yum and the Fedora update repository, who recently died in a road accident. Gnome is the default DE of Fedora, and so it is for Fedora 20. However unlike Ubuntu (where they had to create different distros for each DE) Fedora comes with KDE, XFCE, LXDE and MATE. You can install the DE of your choice on top of base Fedora."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

All I can say to that is... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715441)


Re:All I can say to that is... (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715475)

Are you certain?

Re:All I can say to that is... (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717475)

Yes, the Cat is out of the bag already.

Re:All I can say to that is... (1)

haruchai (17472) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45716993)

He's on 1st post.

It's a meta joke (5, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715463)

Heisenbug - nice. A fitting name for a bleeding edge distro.

Re:It's a meta joke (1)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715481)

Not as good as Spherical Cow.

Re:It's a meta joke (1)

mr_da3m0n (887821) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716069)

Beefy Miracle was the best.

Re:It's a meta joke (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715637)

Heisenbug - nice. A fitting name for a bleeding edge distro.

Are you upgrading? I'm uncertain.

Re:It's a meta joke (3, Funny)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715723)

I've been watching the installation progression, but it will finish in 17 mins, now 2 mins, now 26 mins, now 45 secs, now 12 mins...

Re:It's a meta joke (3, Funny)

Gothmolly (148874) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715759)

With Linux, are you ever really DONE installing?

Re:It's a meta joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716661)

Ah, yes, the humor of a non-linux user. I'm sure that was absolutely hilarious to your peers, but then again, I wouldn't know.

Re:It's a meta joke (1)

neiras (723124) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717029)

I've been using Linux since early Slackware. I laughed. Lighten up.

Re:It's a meta joke (4, Funny)

sconeu (64226) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715799)

They've stolen the Microsoft timer code!!!!!!

Re:It's a meta joke (2)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715903)

The copyright ended.

Re:It's a meta joke (1)

cellocgw (617879) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716321)

Heisenbug - nice. A fitting name for a bleeding edge distro.

So it's Breaking Good?

Re:It's a meta joke (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716399)

Well, it is and it isn't.

Re:It's a meta joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45716871)

I would have thought it was dedicated to Walter White who recently died.

Agreed, guessing already what's up next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717249)

Heisenbug - nice. A fitting name for a bleeding edge distro.

It must be irony, Bohr bug would have been closer to truth, but thinking what's up the line, I may guess that Scrödinger's Bug, will follow up soon too.

I hate when it happens and it will probably drive us all nuts, but isn't just sweet when bug disappears once you observe it?



Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715483)

Really, the first link in the summary.

May your lifespan be long, boring and painfull, and your death an endless voyage in limbo.


Re:AAARGH (3, Insightful)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717535)


What was wrong with linking directly to Fedora site.
I'm so sick of these spamvertisement sites that rush up a page and post it on Slashdot, that I virtually never click the first link.

Was it even or odd.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715493)

..releases of Redhat you had to watch like a hawk again?

I've a spare motherboard and some HDs kicking around, maybe I'll have a go at installing a Redhat descendant for the first time in well over a decade (Has it really been that long a time?..ye gods..'one day you'll find' and all that.)

Re:Was it even or odd.. (2)

M1FCJ (586251) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715531)

What is wrong with a nice VM?
Who dedicates real hardware to test these days?

Re:Was it even or odd.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715641)

What is wrong with a nice VM?
Who dedicates real hardware to test these days?

The guy with a rather large junkpile of donated obsolete systems...
Hell my desktops have just (past two weeks) been upped from single core P4s to dual cores, and the one I'm typing this on has a rather cute fault with the PCI express bus (so long as I don't plug anything into it, I'm fine)..

My last 'production' Redhat install was on a Sparc Classic, if that dates me.

Re:Was it even or odd.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715791)

What is wrong with a nice VM?

should have also added that I've naught against VMs, in fact, at my place of employ, some of my best friends are VMs..

Re:Was it even or odd.. (1)

jellomizer (103300) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716065)

People with spare motherboards and some HDs kicking around.

I got married, my wife doesn't let me collect old computer parts. But if I weren't it would be a nice way to test stuff out. Vs. having a big block of storage gone on your favorite PC.

Re:Was it even or odd.. (1)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 hours | (#45717619)

Disk is cheap. You won't miss it.

And that huge block of storage can be recovered any time you want. Entry level desktop machines these days come with more than enough storage to accommodate running a couple concurrent VMs.

Re:Was it even or odd.. (2)

mea2214 (935585) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45716813)

I've always had best luck with even Fedora releases. I'm still on Fedora 14 and have been patiently waiting for 20 to hit the shelves.

Re:Was it even or odd.. (2)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718415)

Just go for it. Fedora 20 is worth investing some time in, since it is systemd based and therefore shows the direction that most Linux distribution are heading. All the knowledge you gain about systemd and its tools like "journalctl" can be directly used in future Linux distro's like RHEL, CentOS, SUSE, etc.

So instead of wasting time getting to know a particular distros home made tools for eg. managing daemons, you can learn a set of standard tools that can be deployed exactly the same way across many different Linux distributions.

I think any System Admin out there should seriously start to learn systemd, even if their present production servers doesn't support it yet, because some day they will.

Re:Was it even or odd.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,9 hours | (#45719943)

> since it is systemd based and therefore shows the direction that most Linux distribution are heading

We would be happy if you'd stop spreading such unproven bs!

Whoopty do (0)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715521)

You can install the DE of your choice on top of base Fedora

That's the case with pretty much every distro out there. Ubuntu is the exception in that regard.

Re:Whoopty do (2)

XanC (644172) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715609)

Can't you do that on Ubuntu too? I thought the different distros really were just installation defaults.

Re:Whoopty do (0)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715665)

The summary makes a (pretty much meaningless) distinction between Ubuntu requiring different base installations for different desktops, instead of a single base installation. So yeah, Ubuntu is different from most distros in that regard I guess. But no one really gives a fuck. But I guess distros will do anything these days to try to distinguish themselves from every other distro out there that's pretty much the same.

Re:Whoopty do (4, Informative)

Desler (1608317) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715761)

There has been a minimal Ubuntu install that you can then install your DE of choice on top of since at least 8.04.

Re:Whoopty do (2, Informative)

Fwipp (1473271) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715879)

And even if you install Unity-flavored Ubuntu and want to switch to, say, Cinnamon, just add the PPA and go.

Re:Whoopty do (1)

Knuckles (8964) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717531)

The problem with installing flavor A and then apt-getting DE B is always that you end up with a gazillion different utilities which clutter up your menus and are confusing even to the seasoned linux user. You can do it, and it may be reasonable if you are evaluating DEs prior to a decision, but it's not pretty. Given Ubuntu's targets they are doing it right IMHO.

Re:Whoopty do (1)

Drew617 (3034513) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716123)

Jesus Christ, how did that make it into a Slashdot summary?

apt-get install gnome-desktop

Re:Whoopty do (4, Informative)

AdamWill (604569) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716375)

We (Fedora) didn't write anything comparing the way we provide desktops to how Ubuntu does it. That's something the person who submitted the story wrote. It's not a comparison we'd find particularly interesting, I don't think.

Re:Whoopty do (2)

icebike (68054) | 1 year,12 hours | (#45717747)

Yeah, it seemed to me to simply be a way to throw some gratuitous denigration and farts in the general of Ubuntu.

People can't seem to just report the news these days, they have to color it and use it as a springboard for their own
pet peeves and preferences. Something learned from the mainstream media I guess.

Re:Whoopty do (2)

Arker (91948) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716689)

You *can* (submitter appears to be a bit confused) but there is certainly no guarantee it will work well. When you go against the Ubuntu way and start making your own decisions it's easy to get well outside of what is tested and supported.

Even KDE is IIRC only maintained by external volunteers, Ubuntu is built around the idea that they decide and you use what they decided on. If you want to make choices there are plenty of better distributions to use.

Re:Whoopty do (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45716869)

ubuntu is a fucking piece of shit and i say that from a ubuntu "desktop", i.e, a really bad imitation of osx...can't wait to get back to a mac, ubuntu is poo.

Re:Whoopty do (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715611)

Wait, what? You can't install DEs of your choice on Ubuntu? o_O

Re:Whoopty do (0)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715643)

Sure you can. This guy is a fucking twit same with the submitter.

Re:Whoopty do (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715621)

In what way? You simply install the meta package for the desktop you want. OMG so hard!!!

Re:Whoopty do (1)

jones_supa (887896) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716093)

What bugs me though that if you want to uninstall an desktop environment, you cannot just uninstall the particular metapackage, but you must uninstall all the packages separately.

Re: Whoopty do (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717315)

Install the meta package with aptitude install, not apt-get. Packages only pulled in as dependencies will be marked as such, and if you remove the meta package that pulled them in, they'll get removed as well

Debian tried switching to aptitude as default years ago, but it's not taking root very well

Re:Whoopty do (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716465)

yeah, unless it breaks something :D

Re:Whoopty do (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715859)

The /. article is extremely misleading.

You can install any DE of your choice in Ubuntu, simply using apt-get. The real difference is that Fedora offers a DVD with all the DEs available. This is the only place where Ubuntu differs in this regard, it simply doesn't provide the one, large DVD. It's not the end of the world because it's not needed. Why download a DVD with all the packages when you can just get the ones you need?

Re:Whoopty do (1)

no_go (96797) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716339)

I'm running KDE on Ubuntu 13.04 (installed from the standard dvd download).
All i had to do is apt-get the relevant (meta?)package .
No need to download the Kubuntu dvd.

Re:Whoopty do (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718345)

Except Kubuntu, since it's now an independent distro, doesn't include Canonical spyware.

Re:Whoopty do (1)

RDW (41497) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716805)

I think a lot of people don't realise how easy it is to switch desktops in Ubuntu - just install the appropriate packages from the standard repositories and choose whichever you want to use at login. Occasionally you run into minor conflicts, but the major DEs generally co-exist quite happily. You don't have to go with, say, Xubuntu just because you want Xfce. The spinoff distributions aren't just standard Ubuntu with alternative desktops, they also have very different collections of default packages, so that you might get, e.g., Abiword and Gnumeric instead of LibreOffice. The last time I tried this, I actually found it easier to get what I wanted by installing the basic Xfce package on top of standard Ubuntu, rather than hunting around for what was missing from the default Xubuntu.

Canonical, of course, wants to promote their own specific flavour of Ubuntu, so it's in their interests for the non-Unity spinoffs to have distinct identities with different names, and not to provide a choice of DEs in the standard installer.

Re:Whoopty do (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | 1 year,12 hours | (#45717811)

Ubuntu isn't even really an exception. You can still install the barebones "server" flavor, then drop whatever DE you want on top of that. Or start with one DE, then install another DE alongside it. As far as I'm concerned it is just a nit-picky detail of what they happen to promote as the default distribution image.

I'm fedup with this (0)

jfdavis668 (1414919) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715669)

so many updates.

Re:I'm fedup with this (2)

coolsnowmen (695297) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716033)

They were asking for that joke ( fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedUp ). Well, you have to name it something I guess.

Re:I'm fedup with this (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45716867)

Not if you use software RAID, you're not - there has been no supported way to upgrade since Fedora 16 if you do something bizarre, like mirror your drives.

Unless this got fixed in 20 and the bz was never updated.

Driver arrested (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715719)

Here [heraldsun.com] is the lovely person that ran Seth over.

Re:Driver arrested (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717165)

Well since he's black I guess he won't be able to get away with the ol' "affluenza" excuse....in the American south running people over with a car is only crime if black.

Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715867)

I do like Fedora, no doubt! Unfortunately having to maintain my system all 6 Months with a full update is a nogo! Too much time to invest only to get everything the way my system used to be. Fedup or yum update is an alternative but the system gets cluttered after a while.

My next distribution will be a long term system because I need a stable working and reliable system. Due my job I have no time to update every 6 months and after update there are still too many quirks that needs to get solved over time. And for this I don't have time either.

Maybe RHEL7 or DEBIAN Jessie will be the next choice. I even consider Windows7 for my Work machine (not because I am a fan of Windows and Microsoft) no because I have work to do and earn my money. The quick update every 6 months is an absolute nogo!

May I ask the Fedora people to offer a long term Fedora distro or maybe a rolling release or maybe switch from 6 Months to every 12 Months ?

CentOS (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716077)

That's why CentOS exists, no?

Re:CentOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716249)

That's why CentOS exists, no?

Good argument. I heard about CentOS for quite some years now but never paid attention or installed it. There are too many Distros outside to keep track of all of them. But yes I should put it on my mental note.

Re:CentOS (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716443)

RHEL is a bit slow but that's a feature if you're the kind of user that wants that kind of distribution. You install it once and it will continue to work reliably for years and years. It's of course a little bit extra behind right now since the next major release is expected $REALSOON. It's likely that Fedora 19 or so will be the base for RHEL 7. They originally planned to use Fedora 18 but decided to skip that release for some reason.

Re:CentOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716603)

Yes I am aware of these informations but thanks anyways. The other thing that I am quite worried about is that with every ongoing release of GNOME 3 the system runs slower on my E450 powered notebook. Last Weekend I had some time to fedup from fc18 to fc20 on my system (only for a test) and figured out huge performance loss. The one was caused by journald that caused a huge impact on read/write operations on my harddisk and the other is GNOME 3 slamming the APU (CPU/GPU combo) quite a lot. So in case I may decide to swith to RHEL7 I then must be sure that it won't run journald. I hope I can install xfce on it as an alternative to GNOME3. I need to investigate here.

Re:CentOS (2)

fnj (64210) | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718583)

I do like Fedora, no doubt! Unfortunately having to maintain my system all 6 Months with a full update is a nogo!

That's why CentOS exists, no?

To GP: there is absolutely no reason whatever that you have to upgrade every 6 months. NONE. Every release is supported until one month after the SECOND release following. That means 13 months of life. You can upgrade as fast as every 6 months or as slow as every 12-13 months. Admittedly, that is still a pretty demanding rate.

To P: yes, but RHEL/CentOS has got its own severe problems. Fedora is too bleeding edge unless you're really into the latest and greatest. RHEL/CentOS remains supported for about a decade, but development is WAY too slow. It is just absurd that on RHEL/CentOS you are frozen in with 2010's RHEL6 with gcc 4.4.7 until you FINALLY get 4.8.2 with RHEL7 sometime in 2014; my guess is not very far from midyear at the earliest. That is just so antiquated it is sad. That is just one example of how ancient some of the components get after 4 years. Even as it stands, the day RHEL7 goes GA, gcc is going to be obsolete, because gcc 4.9 will probably be out by then, with key c++ 14 ("1y") support. Sigh.

I don't know what the answer is. It is not easy to find a happy medium. I guess if RHEL release rates were really every 18-24 months as they have always claimed to aim for, nobody would be anywhere near as exasperated as they are now. But it is almost surely going to be at least 40 months from RHEL6 to 7, and that is just way, way too slow. Keep the decade of support, but change the spacing from 3.5 years to 1.75 or so. That would be just about ideal, IF it could be managed.

But I think if it were possible to do that, they would be doing it. You can't always get what you want no how.

Re:CentOS (3, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718737)

GCC 4.4 is just the system compiler. Red Hat provides supported installations of GCC 4.8 as part of what they call Red Hat Developer Toolset. It includes modern versions of the GNU stack as well as the latest version of the Eclipse development environment.

Re:Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (1)

sv_libertarian (1317837) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716295)

I only upgrade every couple of years, although most of the time you can upgrade in the background, and not have to change much, if anything on the front end. I went from 11, to 12, to 13 that way.

Re:Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (2)

cbcbcb (567490) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716545)

Fedora already supports releases for 12 months, as the most recent 2 releases are supported. Fedora 19 has been out for six months, and will be supported for a further six (or so!) months until Fedora 21 is released. In contrast, Ubuntu only supports its releases for 9 months, except for the LTS releases.

Re:Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45716921)

May I ask the Fedora people to offer a long term Fedora distro or maybe a rolling release or maybe switch from 6 Months to every 12 Months ?

If you install Fedora release n on Day 1, you don't need to install Fedora release n+2 until 13 or 14 months later (assuming you want updates).

Something like Arch's approach of continually rolling updates is actually starting to look like the better idea, since they have to pay attention to breakage and upgrade issues.

Re:Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (1)

oddtodd (125924) | 1 year,10 hours | (#45719339)

I have two boxen with Arch and two with Fedora (19 and Beta20), I use the Fedora as my 'personal' machine and keep /home on a separate partition to make staying up with the 6 month cycle easier, although I do skip the occasional release.
I had my parents on a Fedora box, but quickly saw that I needed a longer term, lower maintenance solution, and have them on Arch for several months now.
I switched from Crux to Arch years ago but got off it when I had some update breakage issues or something that peeved me (or caught my eye elsewhere, so many distros, so little time and all that), but have been toying with it again for a year or so and it is rock solid and no throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so far.
Anywho, to make a short post long, Arch is a good idea for someone who doesn't mind getting a little grease under their fingernails now and then.

Re:Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717233)

They have a long term release - it's called Red Hat.

Re:Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718247)

Sounds like what Fedora really needs to do is simply fix FedUp so that it doesn't grow cluttered.

Personally it's been about 8 years since I used Fedora so I don't know what's up over there. But the aggravation of reinstalling every 6 months drove me from Mint to Kubuntu a couple years ago, and the latter has made the every 6 month upgrades a breeze. No need for a rolling release as long as the distupgrade can run in the background while you carry on as normal and applies with a simple reboot.

Re: Still with FC18 and probably swtich distro (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718531)

mmm...you do realize that you do not have to up/grade you Fedora every 6 month right? Fedora release lifespan is 13 month.

Nice attempt at trolling Ubuntu (2)

johnsie (1158363) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715905)

Not sure why Ubuntu is even mentioned in the summary. I'm sure the summary containing a story about someone dying could've been written a little more tastefully.

bcache (1)

ak3ldama (554026) | 1 year,15 hours | (#45715963)

Is using bcache really this hard? [fedoraproject.org] I didn't see any mention of setting up bcache during an initial system install. Essentially like: install everything to /dev/sda and use /dev/sdb as cache? Couldn't this be done if /dev/sda1 was a LVM w/ / on it, maybe with /dev/sda2 as /boot?

Re:bcache (1)

AdamWill (604569) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716419)

I don't think the 'nice' support in anaconda actually got done (or if it did, I missed the memo) so yeah, it probably is still that hard. Sorry.

Re:bcache (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716755)

From the very page you linked:

Anaconda support for bcache is expected to be available not until Fedora 21

So when's the next LTS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716391)

I just installed 19 a few weeks ago, dammit.

Re:So when's the next LTS? (4, Informative)

kthreadd (1558445) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716477)

Fedora does not provide an LTS like release. Every release is maintained for 13 months, and new releases are usually released about every six months. The idea is that if you want a more long term release you should really go with Red Hat Enterprise Linux which is based on Fedora.

Re:So when's the next LTS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45716937)

Heh, I just started a download of Fedora 19 before bed yesterday for installation today.

The thing I did notice is that 20 now has MATE and Sugar spins, but 19 did have the all-in-one DVD too so I'm not sure why that's being pointed out in the summary.

Yes! (4, Interesting)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716405)

KDE Plasma Workspaces 4.11 and systemd, yes!

I really like Fedora. Been using it since Fedora Core 1 (and Red Hat before that). It has been rock solid for me all these years, and it just keeps on improving.

The new "systemd" internal plumbing system is a joy to use. "journalctl" is the finest new system tool I have seen for many years; it is really fast, and its superb autocompletion reduces typing to a minimum.

"$ journalctl -F _SYSTEMD_UNIT" instantly show all systemd services that has ever written to the log file.

"$ journalctl -b -1 -p err" filters the log file, so that only errors are shown (-p err) from the previous boot (-b -1, current boot is just "-b" etc.).

A tremendous help for newbies who now doesn't need to learn 'cat', 'grep', 'less' and piping in order to do basic log file inspection.

Besides improving my systemd skills, the next spare time project I will try on Fedora 20 is lightweight containers. They seems like a useful addition to full blown virtual guests.

Re:Yes! No! (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716493)

I noticed huge system slowdown with the introduction of journald. I noticed huge performance loss in reading and writing files on my hard drive. After some investigation I figured out that journald is the cause of all the slowness. After killing the process (multiple times) I figured out that the performance in writing and reading comes back to normal (used to know) speed. After investigating I figured out that after using the system that journald has created around 100-150mb of metafiles in /var/log/systemd and I am quite sure that I never had a software that generated so much logfile information.

Re:Yes! No! (2)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,12 hours | (#45717735)

I think there was a systemd bug that caused syslog to freak out. But besides that, systemd-journald is lightening fast and lightweight on a proper systemd distro like Fedora. It on takes 300 K memory (+3 Megabyte shared mem) on my desktop system. I haven't seen it even suck up 1% CPU time ever.

systemd often keeps logfiles around for longer than many syslog implementations that uses a simple cron/time based logrotate. Since the journal is indexed size isn't really a issue.
You can tweak the maximum size etc., but it unless you are starved for space, a couple of hundred megabytes for many months of log files aren't bad.

Also, systemd-journald logs much more that any sysvinit/syslog implementation is capable of, especially stuff that happens early in the boot process.

All in all I find that "systemd-journald" is extremely fast and resource lightweight, and I just love how well designed and documented the systemd tools are.

Re:Yes! No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#45717805)

If you could read - which you haven't - then you would realize that there the initial writer wrote about READ WRITE performance drop on his hardware. No single word was lost about CPU USAGE!

So if a broken deamon writes 100-150mb in a few hours which causes permanent read / write access (on his harddisk) then there is no wonder that other files that will be read or written within the same time the deamon requires to dump log onto the harddisk, will cause the initial read write to slow down.

Re:Yes! No! (1, Interesting)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718765)

I read his comment just fine, my comment about CPU, as you would have understood if you had read carefully what I wrote, was a general observation that systemd-journald is a really fast lightweight daemon that doesn't consume much memory, or _even_ CPU time. (BTW, I can't fathom any scenario where a daemon does so much RW that it causes a system slowdown, without that daemon sucking up CPU time.)

The OP may have experienced slowdown problems after his upgrade, but systemd-journald in it self wasn't the cause of it. Yes, I can imagine problems upgrading from eg. F17 to F19 without modifying the config files, since the systemd journal wasn't persistent in early Fedora versions, and running both systemd-journald and syslog may double the amount of disk writes.

Re:Yes! No! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 hours | (#45719547)

> but systemd-journald in it self wasn't the cause of it.

"After killing the process (multiple times) I figured out that the performance in writing and reading comes back to normal (used to know) speed."

Reads as in "After I investigated a couple of hours into why my systel slows down so dramatically I figured out that the process that caused this rapid slowdown was named 'systemd-journald'. After killing the Process (which I had to do a couple of times because it respawns all the time) the system operated normally". So it has been proven that obviously it was systemd-journald that caused the massive slowdown on said system.

Maybe the system runs on a thumbdrive (for various reasons this can be the case as in wanting to run linux on a corporate notebook where the company doesnt allow to install anything else than the corporate provided images. So a normal USB 2.0 thumbdrive may have around 10-15mb read/write times on smaller files. So now imagine systemd-journald is nailing that drive with logfiles over 100-150mb in a few hours preventing other files to be properly read or written on the stick due to that crappy journald daemon taking all read write times on the drive.

WHICH to make it CLEAR the old way never did because it doesn't write 100-150mb of crappy logfiles! (maybe in 6 Months but not within 1-2 hours).

Re:Yes! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717179)

Oh yes!
I've struggled for months trying to use things like grep and less, you've no idea how many weeks I've been stumped trying to use cat!

I've been playing with journalctl, and I've managed to learn it all within about 3 days! It's a miracle! Now I can finally drop the endless nights spent scrolling through logs with less!!

If only we could have a tool to change plain text files to systemd log format, and I could use the wonder that is journalctl to parse and find things in them, instead of awful grep. There should be a text edit built in to systemd that does this and allows me to edit files and configurations, imagine how much better it would all be with this wonder of journalctl!

Re:Yes! (1, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,12 hours | (#45717967)

You are trying to be sarcastic but that doesn't help one bit. Some people don't seem to like systemd, and that is ok with me, but what I find hilarious about the systemd haters are that they can't seem to argue their case in any coherent technical way, they always seem to use ad hominem attacks combined with a considerable dose of paranoid conspiracy speculation. I think your problem is that you actually doesn't have any real knowledge or experience with systemd, that way you are bound to loose any technical argument.

The plain fact is that I am right and you are wrong. It is hard for newbies that they have learn several different programs and the concept of piping just to view logs. Getting to know 'grep' is only part of their problems, they also need to know what to grep for. grepping for "error" doesn't help if the crucial message is "critical failure".

With systemd a single line can tell them about all the errors that has happened since they booted the system, and the output is even nicely color coded.
It is simple to perform log filtering on a systemd box, that would otherwise requires pretty advanced grep, sed/awk skills.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#45718143)

> journalctl -b -1 -p err

is of course straight forward compared to

grep "some error" log

Re:Yes! (1, Informative)

Peter H.S. (38077) | 1 year,10 hours | (#45719149)

> journalctl -b -1 -p err

is of course straight forward compared to

grep "some error" log

The AC brigade is out in force tonight I see. Anyway.

Your example shows exactly what is wrong:
1. What error? How does the newbie know what to grep for without knowing what is written in the log? A 'grep "some error"' will of course miss both "Error" and "", but also miss errors indicated with "Failure" or "Warning".
2. The newbie can be swamped with error messages since your simplistic grep (without -i switch and path, and no pager too) just dump every "some error" logged the last couple of months unto the terminal. The journalctl example just showed errors generated since previous boot, something that is much harder to do with grep only.

The journalctl example shows how simple it is to filter the log so that only essential information is shown.

I really recommend you try to actually learn systemd. Get F20 and hack away.
This is a good starting point:
http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/ [freedesktop.org]

You can still use all the grep, sed, awk Kung Fu you know with journalctl, it just makes it so much easier.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 hours | (#45719407)

> How does the newbie know what to grep for without knowing what is written in the log?

"journalctl -b -1 -p err" seems to be exactly what newbie knows out of his mind. Pathetic loser!

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718463)

The plain fact is that I am right and you are wrong.

Or perhaps your ridiculous, stupid binary framing of the tool as obviously "better" is worthy of ridicule.

There are no plain facts, just preferences.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,10 hours | (#45719057)

Or you can reconfigure syslog so that you have a log file that contains only the appropriate error severity for the humans intended to be reviewing it.

Nothing against systemd (never heard of it), but syslog has had this very basic ability for forever. If you have user-level users, you'll need to make the data they need easy for them to get. I concede that systemd may well be the ideal tool for that (again, never having used it myself)

Despite that, newbies who can't handle learning grep, cat, less, etc., have no business inhabiting a unix system. If you want to learn unix, you sure as heck better learn grep.

Re:Yes! (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | 1 year,10 hours | (#45719311)

There's probably an emacs mode which does what you're looking for.

Fedora vs. Ubuntu - Why these comparisons suck (5, Insightful)

hduff (570443) | 1 year,14 hours | (#45716725)

The biggest differences between them are admin tools and init/rc stuff as well as the language the tools are written in. The packaging systems (RPM vs .DEB) are really not as great a difference since they accomplish essentially the same thing overall. The biggest packaging difference is how they name things and where they put them; this is also the most frustrating difference.

You'll notice that most general/new-release distro reviews are superficial, noting things like application/kernel version numbers and what DE is chosen and what default apps are installed -- all meaningless since any DE and most any app and most any kernel can be installed on any distro. These are reviews written by newbies for newbies. Apparently the people who know the significant underlying differences don't write reviews or don't know enough about other distros to draw a meaningful comparison.

Here's a review I wrote comparing Mageia with Fedora, which I hope is not the typical kind of review.
http://maximumhoyt.blogspot.com/2013/01/mageia3-beta-vs-fedora18.html [blogspot.com]

Why not compare these to Ubuntu? Behind the scenes where it matters, it's too different from Fedora/Mageia for me to get a handle on it without obtaining a more intimate knowledge of Ubuntu, something I have no real need or desire to do. My only gripe about Ubuntu is that too much software is developed for it that is reliant on Ubuntu-specific scripts and such things that it cannot easily be used on other Linux distros; HOWTOs written for Ubuntu are so Ubuntu-specific that they are rendered almost useless for any other distro (they seem to be written by the same folks that write the superficial reviews).

sfcrazy and others do Fedora and Ubuntu a disservice by making these uninformed and superficial comparisons.

Re:Fedora vs. Ubuntu - Why these comparisons suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 hours | (#45717445)

If I had an account I would mod you insightful - you perfectly outlined why almost all reviews are utterly useless and a waste of time to peruse.

Re:Fedora vs. Ubuntu - Why these comparisons suck (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,11 hours | (#45718735)

> The biggest packaging difference is how they name things and where they put them; this is also the most frustrating difference.

I find the Ubuntu/Debian packaging system is much weaker than the Fedora/RPM system. Firstly the Fedora packages are sensibly and predictably named (lib prefix for libs, -devel for the development packages, -static for static libs) while the Ubuntu packages are insane with odd version numbers rolled into the package names e.g. zlib1g, zlib32z1, zlib64z1, Fedora nicely has just zlib, with the option to specify an arch (zlib.i686, zlib.x86_64) or a version number or both, but it's all the same package, all built from the same rpm spec file.

Also I've never found multi-arch to work properly on Ubuntu. It seems there are some i686 libs available on a x86_64 install, but it seems random and not always with a package name you'd expect.

On Fedora asking yum to install something with .i686 has just perfectly worked for ages, for apps, libs, debug info, even valgrind!

I guess a lot of Ubuntu's mad package names come from Debian, but then I don't like that either.

Fedora 20 vs. Ubuntu 13 (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#45718013)

Well Fedora must be better, of course. It's at 20 but Ubuntu is only at 13.

Re:Fedora 20 vs. Ubuntu 13 (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#45718119)

Oh yeah? I've got Windows 98.

Like a horror movie sequel (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,12 hours | (#45718139)

Fedora is like a horror movie franchise that keeps turning out sequels. This time, fedup to 20 trashed my package database in a way that the repair tools could not fix, and I had to start over. And, there is -STILL- a decade later -STILL- it never ends -STILL- seeing 100% CPU usage in the desktop environment. Only fix is to reboot (or crash the graphical desktop, which is the same difference since you lose everything). This may not be Fedora's bug, but it sure hasn't been fixed either. And Gnome 3 is so bad I switched to KDE when it came out.

Best advice: DO NOT UPGRADE! Install Fedora and leave it. Build a new machine and install the latest version.

Note: I do not blame Fedora for atrocities like FireFox's constantly changing interface. It's not Fedora's fault.

Cold, dead hands (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | 1 year,10 hours | (#45719325)

Are where you will find syslogd and init scripts. Get away from your wibbly-wobbly daemony-waemony way of doing things, and let the admin adjust startup stuff and view logs via simple text edit commands.

Anyone know when RHEL7 is out?

Amusingly, the ./ motd below reads "Heisenberg may have slept here"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?