On 09/26/2016 12:03 PM, Jan Pokorný wrote: > On 26/09/16 11:39 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: >> On 09/26/2016 09:10 AM, Adam Spiers wrote: >>> Now, here I *do* see a potential problem. If service B is managed by >>> Pacemaker, is configured with Requires=A and After=A, but service A is >>> *not* managed by Pacemaker, we would need to ensure that on system >>> shutdown, systemd would shutdown Pacemaker (and hence B) *before* it >>> (systemd) shuts down A, otherwise A could be stopped before B, >>> effectively pulling the rug from underneath B's feet. >>> >>> But isn't that an issue even if Pacemaker only uses systemd resources? >>> I don't see how the currently used override files protect against this >>> issue. Have I just "discovered" a bug, or more likely, is there again >>> a gap in my understanding? >> >> Systemd handles the dependencies properly here: >> >> - A must be stopped after B (B's After=A) >> - B must be stopped after pacemaker (B's Before=pacemaker via override) >> - therefore, stop pacemaker, then A (which will be a no-op because >> pacemaker will already have stopped it), then B > > without reading too much about systemd behavior here, shouldn't this be: > > - therefore, stop pacemaker, then B (which will be a no-op because > pacemaker will already have stopped it), then A > > (i.e., A and B swapped)?
Whoops, yes, that's what I meant _______________________________________________ Developers mailing list Developers@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/developers
