On 13 August 2016 at 05:12, Dark Penguin <darkpeng...@yandex.ru> wrote: >> In short, you need to make your ExecStop wait for the process to exit. >> The manpage in later versions is more explicit in this regard: >> >> Note that it is usually not sufficient to specify a >> command for this setting that only asks the service to >> terminate (for example, by queuing some form of >> termination signal for it), but does not wait for it to do >> so. Since the remaining processes of the services are >> killed using SIGKILL immediately after the command exited, >> this would not result in a clean stop. The specified >> command should hence be a synchronous operation, not an >> asynchronous one. > > > Oh! I actually missed it. This clarifies it, thank you! Indeed, it's not a > bug, but a "feature" then. :) > > However, I have no way to make it synchronous (without pretty bad kludges). > Let's say my service behaves much like ftp in this example. It doesn't seem > to be an uncommon situation when you're trying to run as a service something > that doesn't provide any other way to shut down gracefully other than > sending a stop command via its console. I could put a whole script waiting > for the process to die in the ExecStop= line, but this is a workaround (and > quite an ugly one); supporting so many types of service startup and > shutdown, surely systemd has a simpler way to deal with this situation?..
I don't think so. If you think this is a common scenario, please file this at the upstream issue tracker: http://github.com/systemd/systemd > By the way, is there a way to actually see the result of systemctl actions > immediately? When we tried to restart, for example, bind9 with SysV scripts, > we saw enough information: "stopping... passed - it was not running; > starting... failed". With systemctl, I have to invoke "status" after every > command because I run a command and I get zero output - even if the command > actually failed and the service did not start and is now in a failed state! > There may be a reason for this, which I am also curious about, but maybe > there is an option to enable output from all systemctl commands, at least if > they fail?.. No, there isn't. There is an upstream request for this https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1287 -- Saludos, Felipe Sateler
