Slashdot Mirror
Does launchd Beat cron?
Blamemyparents writes "For those who aren't Appleheads, you may not have heard that with Tiger, Apple swapped out old Unix standby cron for their own creation, launchd (Apple mentions it on their OS X page and has the man page for it up as well). Seems like it's a bit nerdy, but this changes a LOT about how *nix systems have done things for many years. Launchd is Apple's replacement for quite a few utilities, including launching and quitting quite a few different things, and getting info from the system and other running processes. This page from Ars Technica talks a bit more in depth about it. Apple has open sourced the thing, and is apparently hoping all the unix kids will take a look."
Simply referring to launchd as a cron replacement is a major understatement. launchd runs as the init process and according to TFA was primarily made to replace the /etc/rc.d scripts during startup.
/etc/rc.d scripts (considering the length of pause an fsck would take--users would certainly assume there system hung during boot).
This is somewhat understandable for something like OS X. Doing something simple like displaying a GUI detailing startup is terribly difficult with
I'm not sure launchd is something you'd want in 99% of Linux installs but if you're looking for a end-to-end user-oriented desktop I can see how a technology like this is necessary.
I'm not sure Apple Gets It though. Why in the world would they use XML configs? Gesh.
the machine boots to a desktop (auto log in and all) in less than 15 seconds.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Sun came up with (at first glance) a similar thing called Service Management Facility in Solaris 10.
The launchd service replaces (takes a deep breath) init, rc, the init.d and rc.d scripts, SystemStarter, inetd and xinetd, atd, crond, and watchdog.
Basically any task the needs to run on its own, rather than being manually started by a human being, can be handled by launchd.
Before you jump the gun:
So yes, it is a cron replacement.
i don't read slashdot anymore.
Actually, 15 seconds sounds really wrong to me.
To keep things simple, we divide the boot process into two halves: the hardware half and the software half. The hardware half involves power-on self-tests, and the time it takes varies wildly from computer type to computer type, or even from configuration to configuration. It takes longer to test 8 GB of RAM than 512 MB of RAM.
The software half begins with the grey Apple-logo screen turns blue and the progress window appears.
From the time that happens to the time the menu bar appears (via autologin) should be four seconds on a stock Mac OS X install with middle-of-the-road hardware (dual 1 GHz G4).
Speaking of which, back in about 1995, I think it was, I installed my first Linux distro that I actually used on a daily basis. It was an early version of SuSE linux. Anyway, as I scratched deeper and deeper under the surface, I came to the conclusion that the init system was a mess... the entire system's functionality was implemented as piles upon piles of shell scripts, organized neatly into a whole bunch of directories, and activated according to their name and whatnot. This seemed kind of dumb, actually, because it meant that startup, shutdown, and switching runmodes were a lot less efficient than necessary, and also because you'd have to search through a zillion (that's a big number) scripts to find what you need.
A few years later, in 1999 or so, I tried FreeBSD for the first time. (Here it comes, I'm gonna be modded troll for starting another BSD- vs. SYSV-style init script war...) There, the functionality is still implemented in scripts, but there was a much more sane system. There is one script that is the same across all FreeBSD installs of that version. Then, there's the script you get to customize if you want. There's one more file, and that's where you simply give yes or no answers, or provide other data, in the form of environment variables that influence the running of those two scripts. It's so simple, and works quite quickly. Also, since you really only mess with one file, and two if you modify the script, it's much easier to find where things are. It's more efficient, from many standpoints.
So I don't blame Apple for getting rid of that SYSV stuff. It might have been cool back in the day, but it has lost its luster.
This thread, so far, seems to be filled mostly with "Ah! Someone's doing something differently than UNIX has for 30 years! My knee is jerking!" So I feel I should respond.
launchd is neat. It's not simply a different way of doing the same things, it lets you do different things.
Like automatically evaluating dependencies between daemons, starting them in the right order, and running them in parallel if needed. FreeBSD's the only other OSS system I've ever seen do this; Gentoo does the dependencies but not the parallel startup. (Which is annoying while it's, say, trying to get an address from a nonexistent DHCP server.) Long story short, it dramatically reduces boot time, while eliminating dependency hacks like runlevels and numbered scripts. (Not that BSD had them.)
For those of you who posted without reading the manpage (or administering an OSX system), it also lets you do init-style startup tasks on a per-user basis. You can configure it to start daemons and other processes on the behalf of users as the log in, and shut them down -- gracefully, not by TERM; KILL -- when the user logs out.
Anyone who's ever dealt with the myriad of hacks to get ssh-agent in place will understand why this is good.
There's a lot of resentment these days toward anyone who does something that's perceived as "not the UNIX way." Change is the only way to innovation, people; perhaps the UNIX way is broader than you thought?
Parent did not state it was no replacement for cron, but it is "nothing like cron what-so-ever." It's actually a replacement for "init, rc, the init.d and rc.d scripts, SystemStarter, inetd and xinetd, atd, crond, and watchdog" (copy/paste from another post, this is all explained thoroughly in the Ars Technica article).
Ye Olde cron is still there and running. My Bashpodder script still runs on Tiger. As for launchd, I am going to have to read up on that. Sounds interesting.
Are there schedulers better then cron? You bet. As a scheduler for home use, cron is fine. We are currently trying to find a ore robust replacement for cron that will attempt to correct things before reattempting a script and with dependency checking. When I used to be a operator on a DOS/VSE based mainframe, our scheduler had a dependcy check that would hold jobs from running at thier assigned time if the previous job did not finish and other things like that. It had very robust logging to. No e-mails to root. I could just run a report. There are schedulers that come close to this on UNIX but cron is a very basic scheduler that is flexible which is a saving grace.
Gorkman
Solaris 10 has something very similar to launchd called SMF: Service Management Framework. It doesn't replace cron but it does replace init.d and inetd. It also provides backwards compatibility so that existing init.d scripts and run and existing inetd entries are migrated to SMF on upgrade.
SMF also does dependancy checks and auto matic restart on failure (or some other conditions). It also uses XML for its configuration but imports that into an SQlite database so that it doesn't need to reparse the XML on every service restart or system boot.
For more information on SMF in Solaris see the links in the main architect/developers blog .
There have been several comments along these lines. I don't understand them at all.
The launchd configuration files are property lists, which are serialized Core Foundation data structures. They consist of key-value pairs. They map directly to data structures in memory. The code for parsing them is used all over the place in Mac OS X, and is very old. It dates all the way back to the first development in the late 1990s. It's highly optimized, and it's reused over and over and over and over again.
The second advantage to plists is that they're self-validating. When a program tries to load a plist, if the file doesn't validate against the PropertyList-1.0 DTD, nothing happens. An error is returned, and the program (in this case, launchd) moves on. No chance of a corrupt file producing unexpected results.
The third advantage is that we ship a handy property-list editor with our operating system. This makes it easy for developers to create and modify plists.
Finally, plists are always in UTF-8 format. That's vitally important for us, because our system is fully localized. We have to be able to launch services with names that don't fit into the ASCII/Latin-1 character set. Using plists ensures that we can do that, and gives us that capability for free.
The question here is, why would anybody want to invent their own proprietary ASCII-only, non-validating file format for something as important as system startup control?
The programmer or administrator is responsible for putting that information in the XML file. That's why they're using XML. It allows for more data to be available. Where it (init) used to basically be a list of programs to launch, it (launchd) is now a system whereby a collection of programs are launched. It is much more flexible, and since it can launch programs concurrently, much faster as well.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
We did open-source launchd. It's part of Darwin 8.
It's part of Darwin. Try this page: http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/10.4/
Well
The format we're talking about here is what we call a "property list," a serialized data structure that's written out to disk in XML format. Here's an example. This is the launchd config file for KernelEventAgent, an important Mac OS X system service.This files are generated by the serialization functions in Core Foundation. You create a data structure, in this case a CFDictionary. Then you populate it with objects. In this example, that's four key-value pairs. The keys are "Label," "ProgramArguments," "OnDemand" and "ServiceIPC." The values are a CFString, a CFArray of CFStrings (with just one object in this case), and two CFBooleans. Then you issue one function call to serialize that property list to XML and another to write it to disk as a file.
Of course, in this particular case you wouldn't go through that trouble. But the important part is the other part of the process. You make one function call, passing it a path to a file, and you get back a de-serialized Core Foundation data structure, all type-checked and everything. If at any point the property list fails --if it fails in the XML validation or the static type checking --then you get back null and an error. All atomic, no muss, no fuss.
That's what launchd does. All clear now?
And shipping one of those implies there's difficulty in editing or reading the configs manually.
Look at it and you tell me. How daunted are you?
If you're building better solutions, maybe you can architect them to work well for most unixes?
We're releasing launchd, we're releasing Core Foundation, the property list format is both wide-ass open and fully documented in many different places. What else do you want?