On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 08:48:17AM +, Aviram, Nimrod wrote:
> After upgrading OS to RHEL 7.8 , the service fails to start.
> I'm usually creating a basic user (cfrm) to run Catalina but I've also tried
> with root and received the same exception.
>
> [Unit]
> Description=cfrmic
> [Service]
>
HI,
I've been using the following service to control our catalane server for the
past few years now.
After upgrading OS to RHEL 7.8 , the service fails to start.
I'm usually creating a basic user (cfrm) to run Catalina but I've also tried
with root and received the same exception.
I know that
On 5/5/20 7:41 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
a) Before= does not pull anything anywhere.
Yes I know sorry I did not use the correct term. I did not mean that.
b) as you already found, by default every service is ordered after
local-fs.target. You need DefalutDependencies=no if you want to
Is there a document somewhere that details what the
interactions/conflicts/etc are between systemd.{link,netdev,network} and
the ifupdown mechanisms? I have read the manual pages, of course, but I
feel I'm missing something fundamental. I finally got around to moving to
Debian 10, and in the
05.05.2020 18:15, Thomas HUMMEL пишет:
> On 4/28/20 5:36 PM, Thomas HUMMEL wrote:
>
>> 3) regarding local-fs dans remote-fs targets : I'm not really sure if
>> any fits in either passive or active units.
>
> Hello again,
>
> regarding local-fs.target : is it legit for a custom service unit to
>
On 5/5/20 5:27 PM, Thomas HUMMEL wrote:
On 5/5/20 5:15 PM, Thomas HUMMEL wrote:
-> this seems to be like an actual run and not only the queuing of a
job into the transaction which would be discarded afterwards when the
cycle is discovered ?
Ok I figure out this one : I was confusing the
On 5/5/20 5:15 PM, Thomas HUMMEL wrote:
-> this seems to be like an actual run and not only the queuing of a job
into the transaction which would be discarded afterwards when the cycle
is discovered ?
Ok I figure out this one : I was confusing the
systemd-tmpfiles-setup.service from initrd
On 4/28/20 5:36 PM, Thomas HUMMEL wrote:
3) regarding local-fs dans remote-fs targets : I'm not really sure if
any fits in either passive or active units.
Hello again,
regarding local-fs.target : is it legit for a custom service unit to
pull it in with a Before=local-fs.target (no Wants or
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 16:27, Mark Bannister wrote:
>
> So if I'm understanding correctly, your suggestion is that if an SSH
> session runs a process that ignores SIGTERM and the session is closed
> and then within 90 seconds the same user attempts to open a new SSH
> session, it should trigger
On Tue, May 5, 2020 at 1:19 AM Andy Pieters
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 4 May 2020 at 23:11, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> So this is basically for implementing sudo-like caching for 2FA?
>>
>>
> Yes that's exactly it.
>
>
>> What authentication methods are involved here?
>>
>
> Using yubikey +
On Mon May 4 12:44:12 UTC 2020, Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi wrote:
> For your case, it could be that some process running under
> session-N.scope is not responding to SIGTERM, and this in turn is
> making session-N.scope take time to stop (it has a default timeout of
> 90s), because it has to wait
On Tue, 5 May 2020 at 07:56, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> A service for which sd_notify() is enabled can send
> an EXTEND_TIMEOUT_USEC= message to the service manager, in order to
> extend its timeouts. Wouldn't that work for you?
>
> That sounds perfect, thank you :)
On Mo, 04.05.20 15:51, Andy Pieters (syst...@andypieters.me.uk) wrote:
> Hi
>
> I'm trying to accomplish the following:
>
> An event happens -> I start a systemd service in response
> after RuntimeMaxSec is reached service terminates and cleans up event
>
> Should a second event happen whilst
13 matches
Mail list logo
