[systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
Hello! I know this is a daring post. I just have one question. In the light of http://boycottsystemd.org/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ developing some systemd compatible services for BSD: http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=articlesid=20140915064856 in the light of Debian Bug report logs - #727708 tech-ctte: Decide which init system to default to in Debian. https://bugs.debian.org/727708 Debian Bug report logs - #746715 the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems https://bugs.debian.org/bug=746715 in the light of the ongoing discussions on linux-kernel, debian-devel, debian- user and other mailing lists more than some dozens threads meanwhile: Did you ever ask yourself why your project provokes that amount of resistance and polarity? Did you ever ask yourself whether this really is just resistance against anything new from people who just do not like new or whether it contains *valuable* and *important* feedback? I am taking this upstream with you, cause I think too much of this is resignately been discussed elsewhere, discussed elsewhere for as I got the feedback on various occasions where I recommended to take feedback upstream that people have no hope in having their feedback considered at all. For now I use systemd. I like quite some features. But on the other hand I am vary about it myself. I look at a 45 KiB binary for /sbin/init as PID1 and a 1,3 MiB binary in systemd 215 and wonder myself. I see systemd --user processes running and wonder: Why does the user related stuff need to be in the systemd binary. I had it that it didn´t mount an NFS export and while in the end it was a syntax error in fstab that sysvinit happily ignored, I needed a bug report and dev help to even find that cause. I wonder about the complexity involved in one single large binary. Well… its not about my thoughts about systemd, it is about my perception that I never seen any free software upstream project creating this amount of polarity and discussion in a decade or more. Is it really all just nay-sayers for the sake of nay-saying? Or do they – at least partly – provide *valuable* and *important* feedback. That said I will continue to provide constructive bugreports for as long as systemd is behaving for me on my systems, for as long as I want to give it a chance to prove its benefits. Ciao, -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote: I just have one question. In the light of http://boycottsystemd.org/ Please note that this is just (to the best of my knowledge), the misinformed rants of an anonymous individual (despite it appearing a lot more serious due to the guy buying a domain). http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ Hm, missing content? Debian Bug report logs - #746715 the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems https://bugs.debian.org/bug=746715 this package no longer exists ? Did you ever ask yourself why your project provokes that amount of resistance and polarity? Did you ever ask yourself whether this really is just resistance against anything new from people who just do not like new or whether it contains *valuable* and *important* feedback? We occasinoally got some very critical feedback that is also very good. However, when you look at the various debates in other forums (such as the ones you mentioned), my impression is that it is almost entirely useless noise. I.e., either people are complaining about things that are based entirely on misconceptions, or they are complaining about things that had a root in something reasonable once upon a time, but have long since been either explained or fixed. I am taking this upstream with you, cause I think too much of this is resignately been discussed elsewhere, discussed elsewhere for as I got the feedback on various occasions where I recommended to take feedback upstream that people have no hope in having their feedback considered at all. If people bring useful and at least moderately civil feedback upstream (i.e., technical feedback in terms of bug reports, questions, RFE's or similar, not rants amounting to please stop what you are doing and go away), we do take it very seriously, and answer them to the best of our abilities. That does not mean that every patch is accepted, nor every request is adhered to, but at least you should get an answer with an explanation. The only way to find out is to try though. For now I use systemd. I like quite some features. But on the other hand I am vary about it myself. I look at a 45 KiB binary for /sbin/init as PID1 and a 1,3 MiB binary in systemd 215 and wonder myself. systemd is a lot more powerful than sysvinit, and does take up more space. We are not really optimizing the size of the binary, so if you are interested in looking into making it smaller that's certainly possible. I see systemd --user processes running and wonder: Why does the user related stuff need to be in the systemd binary. This is rather the other way around: the problem solved by PID1, is almost entirely the same as the problem that needs to be solved by the user session manager, so we allow the same code to be reused. The amount of code specific to user sessions in PID1 is really very small. I had it that it didn´t mount an NFS export and while in the end it was a syntax error in fstab that sysvinit happily ignored, I needed a bug report and dev help to even find that cause. I wonder about the complexity involved in one single large binary. PID1 does not parse your fstab, it is done by an external binary. That said, if there is a lack of output when a malformed entry is found, we should probably improve on that (I don't have the bug report in front of me, but please open an RFE if you think this is still not ideal). The reason we reject invalid fstab entries, is that we think it is safer to fail hard if we cannot know for certain what the admin intended to do. It is regrettable that this means that the transition is not as smooth as it otherwise would be, but overall we believe it is the correct thing to do. Cheers, Tom ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:52 AM, Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no wrote: On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote: http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ Hm, missing content? Apparently someone attacked and wiped their website. It's mostly a trimmed-down systemd fork: https://bitbucket.org/bcsd/uselessd (or slashdot, phoronix, etc.) Debian Bug report logs - #746715 the foreseeable outcome of the TC vote on init systems https://bugs.debian.org/bug=746715 this package no longer exists ? https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=746715 -- Mantas Mikulėnas graw...@gmail.com ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
2014-09-21 23:52 GMT+02:00 Tom Gundersen t...@jklm.no: On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Martin Steigerwald mar...@lichtvoll.de wrote: I had it that it didn´t mount an NFS export and while in the end it was a syntax error in fstab that sysvinit happily ignored, I needed a bug report and dev help to even find that cause. I wonder about the complexity involved in one single large binary. PID1 does not parse your fstab, it is done by an external binary. That said, if there is a lack of output when a malformed entry is found, we should probably improve on that (I don't have the bug report in front of me, but please open an RFE if you think this is still not ideal). https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=755506#25 ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
On 09/21/2014 01:31 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: in the light of the ongoing discussions on linux-kernel Could you provide a link to that ongoing discussion that is taking place in the kernel community regarding systemd? Did you ever ask yourself why your project provokes that amount of resistance and polarity? Did you ever ask yourself whether this really is just resistance against anything new from people who just do not like new or whether it contains*valuable* and*important* feedback? I'm not sure why you are under the assumption that we do not consider and have not and are not gathering feedback from individuals, communities or companies for that matter but I'm going to address your questions anyway. Have we ever asked ourselves why our project provokes that amount of resistance and polarity? The answer to that question is yes, yes we have and yes we will continue to do so since resistance and polarity provides with the valuable information amongst other things if the implementation is bad and alternative approach is better ( which often reveals itself at the same time those friction take place ). Dont get me wrong we will not do so when those discussion involve nothing but personal attack on our community member(s) which more often than not happens to be Lennart, Lennart is and never has been the sole person behind this effort, he's part of ever growing community. Nor when it involves us having to implement somekind of hack as opposed to have the problem properly fixed where it belongs ( which could be us or not ) or when those discussion criticizes that we have chosen to tightly integrate ourselves specifically to the linux kernel it's ecosystem and with glibc in mind just like bsd based distribution as well as solaris and other nixes are tightly integrating their components to their kernels but for some dumbfound reason people on the internet are under the assumption that they have the authority of refusing us the freedom of doing the same o_O and the answer to those individuals we dont care about their opinion on this matter. Now alot of the resistance and polarity that is taking place like in the url you pointed at is hiding itself behind their misinterpretation of the so called Unix philosophy and claiming that we somehow fall short on the guidelines originates from few things Doug McIlroy,Rob Pike,Ken Thompson said sometime in the 70's or rather the Unix philosophy was implied not by what these individuals said but rather by what they did which more or less boils down to this.. 1. Write simple parts connected by clean interfaces. 2. Clarity is better than cleverness. 3. Design programs to be connected to other programs. 4. Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from engines. 5. Design for simplicity; add complexity only where you must. 6. Write a big program only when it is clear by demonstration that nothing else will do. 7. Rule of Transparency: Design for visibility to make inspection and debugging easier. 8. Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity. 9. Fold knowledge into data so program logic can be stupid and robust. 10. In interface design, always do the least surprising thing. 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing. 12. When you must fail, fail noisily and as soon as possible. 13. Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time. 14. Avoid hand-hacking; write programs to write programs when you can. 15. Prototype before polishing. Get it working before you optimize it. 16. Distrust all claims for “one true way”. 17. Design for the future, because it will be here sooner than you think. Now after you have read these more of an guidelines than actual philosophy I would like to hear from you where you think systemd has and is falling short of them during it's development phase and lifetime so I can better understand why people seem to be claiming it's not following these guidelines? That being said acceptance and approval are outweighing resistance and polarity in the Linux ecosystem as things currently stand ( otherwise we would not be so widely accepted and adopted ) because we are and continue to solve real problems through close collaboration with wide variety of upstream and distribution, In the long run freeing up contributors time while doings so through the consolidation that takes place while we are at it. If you are wondering as well if we are against emerging alternative init system like the one you refereed to, the answer to that question is no we are not. We welcome and embrace them and hope they evolve to the point they become competing solution so we can continue to evolve ourselves ( or advance beyond us and eventually replace us ) but being frank that wont happen anytime soon. Systemd has been what ca 7 years in the making now with what 5 of those years being direct integration with wide variety of components and
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
Am 22.09.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: Now alot of the resistance and polarity that is taking place like in the url you pointed at is hiding itself behind their misinterpretation of the so called Unix philosophy and claiming that we somehow fall short on the guidelines originates from few things Doug McIlroy,Rob Pike,Ken Thompson said sometime in the 70's or rather the Unix philosophy was implied not by what these individuals said but rather by what they did which more or less boils down to this.. 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing then flood logs with nothing relevant should not happen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072368 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053315 appeared the first time: 2014-01-14 reported: 2014-03-04 refused to fix: 2014-03-24 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
On 09/21/2014 10:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 22.09.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: Now alot of the resistance and polarity that is taking place like in the url you pointed at is hiding itself behind their misinterpretation of the so called Unix philosophy and claiming that we somehow fall short on the guidelines originates from few things Doug McIlroy,Rob Pike,Ken Thompson said sometime in the 70's or rather the Unix philosophy was implied not by what these individuals said but rather by what they did which more or less boils down to this.. 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing then flood logs with nothing relevant should not happen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072368 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053315 ? I dont see the connection here systemd is informing you what start/stopped when these cron job ran. If you dont like it filter it and retrieve only the information you want/need with journalctl. JBG ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
Am 22.09.2014 um 00:48 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 09/21/2014 10:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 22.09.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: Now alot of the resistance and polarity that is taking place like in the url you pointed at is hiding itself behind their misinterpretation of the so called Unix philosophy and claiming that we somehow fall short on the guidelines originates from few things Doug McIlroy,Rob Pike,Ken Thompson said sometime in the 70's or rather the Unix philosophy was implied not by what these individuals said but rather by what they did which more or less boils down to this.. 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing then flood logs with nothing relevant should not happen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072368 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053315 ? I dont see the connection here systemd is informing you what start/stopped when these cron job ran with *that many* lines? that information already exists in /var/log/secure and /var/log/cron these lines are completly useless for a non-developer consider that not refuse that often what a user wants to see or not to see *as default* because as developer you have other needs is one of the reasons *endusers* get sometimes really angry If you dont like it filter it and retrieve only the information you want/need with journalctl if they would have a prefix i would filter them to nowhere in rsyslog please understand that not everybody is using journalctl and if it is only because using centralized logs in databases since long before systemd was introduced signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Implementing remote wake-up for Bluetooth
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johannbg at gmail.com writes: On 09/21/2014 02:25 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote: Ideas on how this should be implemented? Just make sure this gets implemented in the right place and ensure this can be disabled and is disabled by default as well as have proper permission since you dont want to grant the ability to friends who have paired their mobile devices or tablets with their friends computer the ability to wake up/suspend that friends device. This is ridiculous. If the device is paired they can already access your contact list, your media player, get shared files, etc. When it's paired, it's yours. And working on Apple device(s) is one thing, working on all devices is another and supporting this is a bit of an hot potato since many laptop manufactures will not allow a Bluetooth device to wake the computer from sleep mode because of the power consumption requirements to keep the Bluetooth radio activated. Citation needed. So with this feature for people that are to lazy to press the power button to wake up their computer Yeah, right... ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Implementing remote wake-up for Bluetooth
On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 05:47 +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote: Hi Bastien, I wanted to add a toggle box like the one MacOS X has had for a long while, allowing users to wake up their system using a Bluetooth keyboard. The procedure is here: https://github.com/lwfinger/rtl8723au_bt/blob/master/readme.txt We could also always allow remote wake-up when a keyboard or joystick has been paired, I'm not too fussed. Ideas on how this should be implemented? actually there is a bit more to do than just enabling USB remote wakeup. That is just the bare minimum we need to support. Right. On the Bluetooth side, we would actually have to change the HCI event mask to only produce certain events. Otherwise the controller (and with that the host) can wake up for all kinds of reasons. In addition, we would need to program the specific addresses that allow us to wake up. Otherwise anybody knowing your address can trick your system to wake up for no reason. Should that be implemented in BlueZ instead then? Besides BR/EDR mice and keyboards, we also have LE mice these days. They operate a little bit different and might need some extra magic to handle wake ups. I don't think we want mice to wake up the computer, be they LE or not. If there are LE keyboards though, this is a different problem. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
On 09/21/2014 11:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 22.09.2014 um 00:48 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 09/21/2014 10:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 22.09.2014 um 00:15 schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: Now alot of the resistance and polarity that is taking place like in the url you pointed at is hiding itself behind their misinterpretation of the so called Unix philosophy and claiming that we somehow fall short on the guidelines originates from few things Doug McIlroy,Rob Pike,Ken Thompson said sometime in the 70's or rather the Unix philosophy was implied not by what these individuals said but rather by what they did which more or less boils down to this.. 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing then flood logs with nothing relevant should not happen https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1072368 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053315 ? I dont see the connection here systemd is informing you what start/stopped when these cron job ran with *that many* lines? The reason for increased log entries in the journal is that more things are happening now since this is what happening when a job is run. that information already exists in /var/log/secure and /var/log/cron these lines are completly useless for a non-developer Irrelevant to us what is stored in text files so that needs to be handled downstream. consider that not refuse that often what a user wants to see or not to see *as default* because as developer you have other needs is one of the reasons *endusers* get sometimes really angry Depends on personal preference and practices Cron users already are divided into two religious notification groups. Those that have cron job that send email that notifies every time that it ran ( to know it ran ) and those that do not send an email unless the job it was running failed and rely on logwatch to inform them if the cron job ran or not. If you dont like it filter it and retrieve only the information you want/need with journalctl if they would have a prefix i would filter them to nowhere in rsyslog please understand that not everybody is using journalctl Well this is upstream that ships nothing but journalctl whether they use it or not. JBG ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance
On Sun, 2014-09-21 at 15:31 +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: Did you ever ask yourself why your project provokes that amount of resistance and polarity? Did you ever ask yourself whether this really is just resistance against anything new from people who just do not like new or whether it contains *valuable* and *important* feedback? I think that in general the existence of significant amounts of resistance is explained by opposition to anything new. Systemd changes many things, and as distros won't keep support for sysvinit at the same time, people can't easily keep using the old stuff they're used to. That's enough to explain complaints, and their existence does not by itself mean there would be anything wrong with systemd. For now I use systemd. I like quite some features. But on the other hand I am vary about it myself. I look at a 45 KiB binary for /sbin/init as PID1 and a 1,3 MiB binary in systemd 215 and wonder myself. Sysvinit as PID 1 lacks many essential things, so that is not a valid size comparison (and just having the code running with a PID other than 1 is not an improvement). In general, any complaints about the size/bloat of PID 1 are rather silly if you still use it with the Linux kernel, which contains a lot more code in a more central role than PID 1. I had it that it didn´t mount an NFS export and while in the end it was a syntax error in fstab that sysvinit happily ignored, I needed a bug report and dev help to even find that cause. I wonder about the complexity involved in one single large binary. I think this works as an example of how change leads to people complaining, completely unrelated to the existence of any actual quality issues. Sysvinit behavior or debuggability wrt mount issues was not better than systemd is, much less by so much that this would illustrate any general issue with systemd (that's not to say that systemd diagnostics could not be improved). Yet because you were first familiar with sysvinit and had created dubious configuration which happened to work with it, you now feel this is a problem in systemd, just because things have changed. Someone who started with systemd and used it for years before encountering sysvinit would hit a lot more problems. Well… its not about my thoughts about systemd, it is about my perception that I never seen any free software upstream project creating this amount of polarity and discussion in a decade or more. I don't think the reactions to systemd are in any way unique. I've seen similar reactions to other changes. The difference in the systemd case is that a lot of developers interact with the init system at least on a superficial level, and init system choice is mostly done on the distro level, so people can't easily ignore systemd and keep using their old software. That increases the volume of the complaints. Is it really all just nay-sayers for the sake of nay-saying? Or do they – at least partly – provide *valuable* and *important* feedback. nay-sayers as in people who oppose the adoption of systemd because they think that some alternative is less flawed tend to have no clue. You're more likely to get *valid* criticism from people who are at least competent enough to recognize that whatever problems systemd has, the alternatives are worse. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] Cannot get Shutdown Script to Run (Libvirt Virtual Machine Shutdown)
Hello systemd users, I have been trying desperately for weeks to get my simple shutdown script for a Libvirt guest to run before libvirtd is shut down, without success. Essentially, I need the libvirt-windows.sh script to run before the libvirtd service is terminated (which occurs right after systemd-logind outputs its reboot message). How can I get my script into this initial section of daemon shutdowns, at the top? Thanks so much. 3 -Alex *Here is my shutdown systemd service configuration:* [Unit] Description=Stop Libvirt Windows Guest Documentation=man:libvirtd(8) Documentation=http://libvirt.org Before=shutdown.target DefaultDependencies=no [Service] ExecStart=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop Type=oneshot StandardOutput=journal+console [Install] WantedBy=shutdown.target *Here is my journalctl log:* Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd-logind[340]: System is rebooting. *Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 libvirtd[605]: End of file while reading data: Input/output error // HERE IS LIBVIRTD TERMINATING* Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[1]: Failed to reset devices.list on /system.slice: Invalid argument Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Terminating Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Got SIGTERM, quitting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ntpd[606]: ntpd exiting on signal 15 (Terminated) Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface virbr0.IPv4 with address 192.168.122.1. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ModemManager[338]: info Caught signal, shutting down... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface br0.IPv4 with address 192.168.1.2. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 NetworkManager[334]: info ModemManager disappeared from bus Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Stopping SDP server Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Exit Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ModemManager[338]: info ModemManager is shut down Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: avahi-daemon 0.6.31 exiting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Starting Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Reached target Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Starting Exit the Session... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Starting Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Reached target Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Starting Exit the Session... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Received SIGRTMIN+24 from PID 1202 (kill). Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Received SIGRTMIN+24 from PID 1197 (kill). Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[682]: pam_unix(systemd-user:session): session closed for user awgneo Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[420]: pam_unix(systemd-user:session): session closed for user lightdm Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[1]: pulseaudio.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[1]: Unit pulseaudio.service entered failed state. *Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 libvirt-windows.sh[1195]: error: failed to connect to the hypervisor // HERE IS MY SCRIPT FAILING* *Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 libvirt-windows.sh[1195]: error: Failed to connect socket to '/var/run/libvirt/libvirt-sock': No such file or directory* ... ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Cannot get Shutdown Script to Run (Libvirt Virtual Machine Shutdown)
On 22 September 2014 05:40, Alexander Groleau awg...@xbetanet.com wrote: Hello systemd users, Oh good. That's me! I have been trying desperately for weeks to get my simple shutdown script for a Libvirt guest to run before libvirtd is shut down, without success. Essentially, I need the libvirt-windows.sh script to run before the libvirtd service is terminated (which occurs right after systemd-logind outputs its reboot message). How can I get my script into this initial section of daemon shutdowns, at the top? Weeks makes one hesitant to ask: have you tried just popping a ExecStop=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop snippet into /etc/systemd/system/my.libvirt.service.d/? [Install] WantedBy=shutdown.target Either way, shutdown.target conflicts with all system services [1], and is probably not what you want. Good luck, T G-R [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/bootup.html#System%20Manager%20Shutdown ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Cannot get Shutdown Script to Run (Libvirt Virtual Machine Shutdown)
I have tried the traditional ExecStart, ExecStop all in one script with no luck (with RemainAfterExit=yes, etc.). I just can't seem to get it to run in this daemon SIGTERM section :(. I hate how on my system, libvirtd is literally the first thing to go down, making this quite tricky. What might I try to use for the WantedBy instead? I thought DefaultDependencies=no removed the standard conflict with shutdown.target. Thanks for your response. Any other suggestions? :) On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Tobias Geerinckx-Rice tobias.geerinckx.r...@gmail.com wrote: On 22 September 2014 05:40, Alexander Groleau awg...@xbetanet.com wrote: Hello systemd users, Oh good. That's me! I have been trying desperately for weeks to get my simple shutdown script for a Libvirt guest to run before libvirtd is shut down, without success. Essentially, I need the libvirt-windows.sh script to run before the libvirtd service is terminated (which occurs right after systemd-logind outputs its reboot message). How can I get my script into this initial section of daemon shutdowns, at the top? Weeks makes one hesitant to ask: have you tried just popping a ExecStop=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop snippet into /etc/systemd/system/my.libvirt.service.d/? [Install] WantedBy=shutdown.target Either way, shutdown.target conflicts with all system services [1], and is probably not what you want. Good luck, T G-R [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/bootup.html#System%20Manager%20Shutdown ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Cannot get Shutdown Script to Run (Libvirt Virtual Machine Shutdown)
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Alexander Groleau awg...@xbetanet.com wrote: Hello systemd users, I have been trying desperately for weeks to get my simple shutdown script for a Libvirt guest to run before libvirtd is shut down, without success. Essentially, I need the libvirt-windows.sh script to run before the libvirtd service is terminated (which occurs right after systemd-logind outputs its reboot message). How can I get my script into this initial section of daemon shutdowns, at the top? Thanks so much. 3 -Alex Here is my shutdown systemd service configuration: [Unit] Description=Stop Libvirt Windows Guest Documentation=man:libvirtd(8) Documentation=http://libvirt.org Before=shutdown.target DefaultDependencies=no Why? Do you have special reasons to avoid default dependencies? What are these reasons? I suggest removing it - it is always better to start with default configuration before customizing it. Also you do not specify any dependency to other services, so your service and libvirtd service are stopped concurrently. To be stopped before some other service it needs to be started *after* this service. I.e. After=your-virtd.service [Service] ExecStart=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop That's usually does not work, at least when using default dependencies. During shutdown services are stopped. And you cannot tell it to wait for starting one service before stopping another service (I wish it could). So try RemainAfterExit=true ExecStop=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop Not sure if ExecStart is mandatory; if yes, just use /usr/bin/true. Type=oneshot StandardOutput=journal+console [Install] WantedBy=shutdown.target No, you must start it on on boot for above stopping on shutdown to work, so use WantedBy=default.target (or multi-user.target or graphical.target depending on your configuration) Here is my journalctl log: Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd-logind[340]: System is rebooting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 libvirtd[605]: End of file while reading data: Input/output error // HERE IS LIBVIRTD TERMINATING Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[1]: Failed to reset devices.list on /system.slice: Invalid argument Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Terminating Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Got SIGTERM, quitting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ntpd[606]: ntpd exiting on signal 15 (Terminated) Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface virbr0.IPv4 with address 192.168.122.1. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ModemManager[338]: info Caught signal, shutting down... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface br0.IPv4 with address 192.168.1.2. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 NetworkManager[334]: info ModemManager disappeared from bus Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Stopping SDP server Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Exit Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ModemManager[338]: info ModemManager is shut down Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: avahi-daemon 0.6.31 exiting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Starting Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Reached target Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Starting Exit the Session... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Starting Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Reached target Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Starting Exit the Session... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Received SIGRTMIN+24 from PID 1202 (kill). Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Received SIGRTMIN+24 from PID 1197 (kill). Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[682]: pam_unix(systemd-user:session): session closed for user awgneo Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[420]: pam_unix(systemd-user:session): session
Re: [systemd-devel] Cannot get Shutdown Script to Run (Libvirt Virtual Machine Shutdown)
I have tried the following script as well during my adventures with no success: [Unit] Description=Start/Stop Libvirt Windows Guest Documentation=man:libvirtd(8) Documentation=http://libvirt.org After=libvirtd.service [Service] ExecStart=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh start ExecStop=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop RemainAfterExit=yes Type=oneshot StandardOutput=journal+console [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target This works for boot (my sh script is run right after libvirtd is started); however, the libvirtd daemon, started by libvirtd.service, is always terminated well before my sh is run on shutdown/reboot. The reverse order is not happening as it logically should. I will post the journal for this script shortly. So, still no luck :/ Thanks, Alex On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 7:40 AM, Alexander Groleau awg...@xbetanet.com wrote: Hello systemd users, I have been trying desperately for weeks to get my simple shutdown script for a Libvirt guest to run before libvirtd is shut down, without success. Essentially, I need the libvirt-windows.sh script to run before the libvirtd service is terminated (which occurs right after systemd-logind outputs its reboot message). How can I get my script into this initial section of daemon shutdowns, at the top? Thanks so much. 3 -Alex Here is my shutdown systemd service configuration: [Unit] Description=Stop Libvirt Windows Guest Documentation=man:libvirtd(8) Documentation=http://libvirt.org Before=shutdown.target DefaultDependencies=no Why? Do you have special reasons to avoid default dependencies? What are these reasons? I suggest removing it - it is always better to start with default configuration before customizing it. Also you do not specify any dependency to other services, so your service and libvirtd service are stopped concurrently. To be stopped before some other service it needs to be started *after* this service. I.e. After=your-virtd.service [Service] ExecStart=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop That's usually does not work, at least when using default dependencies. During shutdown services are stopped. And you cannot tell it to wait for starting one service before stopping another service (I wish it could). So try RemainAfterExit=true ExecStop=/usr/bin/libvirt-windows.sh stop Not sure if ExecStart is mandatory; if yes, just use /usr/bin/true. Type=oneshot StandardOutput=journal+console [Install] WantedBy=shutdown.target No, you must start it on on boot for above stopping on shutdown to work, so use WantedBy=default.target (or multi-user.target or graphical.target depending on your configuration) Here is my journalctl log: Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd-logind[340]: System is rebooting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 libvirtd[605]: End of file while reading data: Input/output error // HERE IS LIBVIRTD TERMINATING Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[1]: Failed to reset devices.list on /system.slice: Invalid argument Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Terminating Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Got SIGTERM, quitting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ntpd[606]: ntpd exiting on signal 15 (Terminated) Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface virbr0.IPv4 with address 192.168.122.1. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ModemManager[338]: info Caught signal, shutting down... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: Leaving mDNS multicast group on interface br0.IPv4 with address 192.168.1.2. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 NetworkManager[334]: info ModemManager disappeared from bus Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Stopping SDP server Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 bluetoothd[458]: Exit Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 ModemManager[338]: info ModemManager is shut down Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 avahi-daemon[335]: avahi-daemon 0.6.31 exiting. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Paths. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Timers. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopping Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Stopped target Sockets. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Starting Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Reached target Shutdown. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[681]: Starting Exit the Session... Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopped target Default. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9 systemd[419]: Stopping Basic System. Sep 21 23:14:53 Xerxes9
