Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Tobias Hunger]

Hi Johann,

Am 01.04.2016 17:38 schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> So if your server has the role of an web server and the web service fails
to run or is not run ( for example you forgot to enable it, or you
misconfigured it before rebooting ) or that phone home service failed since
it could not contact it's home server due to wide variety of possible
network related issue or was booted into a different boot target or due to
simple type unit (mis)ordering that would constitute as the operating
system failing to boot?

Yes.

My server is stateless and immutable. So it has one configuration set up to
do one task. When I deploy a new state (think: /usr partition, kernel,
/etc) I need to boot into that new state.

If the server fails to do its job after a reboot (as determined by some
check I define), then it should definitely reboot into the previous state.

> I dont follow that logic and with my administrator hat on would never
want to have my servers rely or depend on such boot completion logic sorry.

That is fine for you to not want that. But please do not dismiss my
use-cases in such a round-about way.

When a boot is successful depends a lot on the context of the system. Feel
free to implement a sane default, but please allow for a wide range of
customizations. Your laptop is a very different use-case than a small
device in an inaccessible location: If networking does not work in your
laptop, you are right there to fix it. In an sensor taking measurements at
the bottom of the ocean, loss of networking due to a buggy kernel driver is
much harder/expensive to fix.

Best Regards,
Tobias
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Vasiliy Tolstov]

2016-04-01 18:42 GMT+03:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson :
> So if your server has the role of an web server and the web service fails to
> run or is not run ( for example you forgot to enable it, or you
> misconfigured it before rebooting ) or that phone home service failed since
> it could not contact it's home server due to wide variety of possible
> network related issue or was booted into a different boot target or due to
> simple type unit (mis)ordering that would constitute as the operating system
> failing to boot?
>
> I dont follow that logic and with my administrator hat on would never want
> to have my servers rely or depend on such boot completion logic sorry.


So i think that final stage of success mast be configured by end-user
(or overrided).
My question firstly for notebook/netbook. But for server this is
useful too (and vm).
As i see efi/uefi based boot faster than grub based and more simple.


-- 
Vasiliy Tolstov,
e-mail: v.tols...@selfip.ru
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Jóhann B . Guðmundsson]

On 04/01/2016 03:15 PM, Tobias Hunger wrote:

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
 wrote:

That makes no sense that an boot is not market completed until it manage to
contact it's update servers but inline with other hacks coreOS is doing in
relation with systemd.

I sense a lot of negativity here:-)

A server needs to provide some set of functionality. Only once that
functionality is available the server has booted successfully.


So if your server has the role of an web server and the web service 
fails to run or is not run ( for example you forgot to enable it, or you 
misconfigured it before rebooting ) or that phone home service failed 
since it could not contact it's home server due to wide variety of 
possible network related issue or was booted into a different boot 
target or due to simple type unit (mis)ordering that would constitute as 
the operating system failing to boot?


I dont follow that logic and with my administrator hat on would never 
want to have my servers rely or depend on such boot completion logic sorry.


JBG
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Jóhann B . Guðmundsson]

On 04/01/2016 03:15 PM, Alex Crawford wrote:

On 04/01, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:

That makes no sense that an boot is not market completed until it manage
to contact it's update servers but inline with other hacks coreOS is
doing in relation with systemd.

To what hacks, exactly, are you referring?


The environment one [¹]

1. 
https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-December/035364.html


___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Tobias Hunger]

Hi Alex,

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Alex Crawford  wrote:
> On 04/01, Tobias Hunger wrote:
>> IIRC both coreos and chormeOS only mark a boot as successful after
>> talking to their respective update servers. The assumption apparently
>> is that the OS can fix itself when it is able to communicate properly
>> with its own update server.
>
> This isn't quite right. The boot is marked successful as update-engine.service
> starts. It does not wait for a network connection. In fact, update_engine
> doesn't reach out to the update service until a few minutes have passed.

Oh, sorry, I must have misunderstood something then:-)

Thanks for correcting me!

Best Regards,
Tobias
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Alex Crawford]

On 04/01, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> That makes no sense that an boot is not market completed until it manage 
> to contact it's update servers but inline with other hacks coreOS is 
> doing in relation with systemd.

To what hacks, exactly, are you referring?

-Alex


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Alex Crawford]

On 04/01, Tobias Hunger wrote:
> IIRC both coreos and chormeOS only mark a boot as successful after
> talking to their respective update servers. The assumption apparently
> is that the OS can fix itself when it is able to communicate properly
> with its own update server.

This isn't quite right. The boot is marked successful as update-engine.service
starts. It does not wait for a network connection. In fact, update_engine
doesn't reach out to the update service until a few minutes have passed.

-Alex


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Tobias Hunger]

Hi Jóhann and Vasiliy,

IIRC both coreos and chormeOS only mark a boot as successful after
talking to their respective update servers. The assumption apparently
is that the OS can fix itself when it is able to communicate properly
with its own update server.

It would be nice if something similar could be implemented with
systemd in a straight-forward way IMHO.

Best Regards,
Tobias

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
 wrote:
>
>
> On 04/01/2016 10:52 AM, Vasiliy Tolstov wrote:
>>
>> 2016-04-01 13:50 GMT+03:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson :
>>>
>>> AFAIK the android boot process fires an standard broadcasting action
>>> "ACTION_BOOT_COMPLETED" once system services are up and running in
>>> memory,
>>> which is the time when it considered the boot being completed and
>>> "stable".
>>
>>
>> Thanks, how about ChromeOS ?
>>
>
> Dont know, dont care. Upstart ( which ChromeOS uses as it's init system ) is
> history...
>
> JBG
>
> ___
> systemd-devel mailing list
> systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Vasiliy Tolstov]

2016-04-01 13:08 GMT+03:00 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson :
> I dont see how you plan on implement this if not with either a secondary
> program loader which stores an redundant environment or an kernel support
> that does the similar/same thing I mean you need to have a watchdog
> support,boot counter  which get's cleared when system decides it's up and
> stable,boot limit which tells it how many times it should try with an given
> entry, an entry which points to which kernel/image/snapshot to use right?
>
> I'm pretty sure Kay and Lennart must have thought things through so they
> just dont add just some half ass, none future proof, working solution that
> give administrators and embedded distribution fake notion of redundancy or a
> "fail-safe" when images and or kernel or the OS itself get's
> update/upgraded.
>
> If this cannot or will not be reliably implemented there is no point in
> implementing this in the first place from my pov.


In my POV - provide systemd service file that started after all stuff
(may be this is systemd --user service or something like this) .
I think that successful start - run my preferred DE.

-- 
Vasiliy Tolstov,
e-mail: v.tols...@selfip.ru
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Jóhann B . Guðmundsson]

On 03/31/2016 02:31 PM, Michal Sekletar wrote:

We don't need to extend the kernel in order to implement this
particular mechanism. After new kernel is installed, you make it
default and mark as "tentative". Then, after first successful boot of
newly added bootloader entry you just remove the flag, because it is
known to work.
I dont see how you plan on implement this if not//with either a 
secondary program loader which stores an redundant environment or an 
kernel support that does the similar/same thing I mean you need to have 
a watchdog support,boot counter  which get's cleared when system decides 
it's up and stable,boot limit which tells it how many times it should 
try with an given entry, an entry which points to which 
kernel/image/snapshot to use right?


I'm pretty sure Kay and Lennart must have thought things through so they 
just dont add just some half ass, none future proof, working solution 
that give administrators and embedded distribution fake notion of 
redundancy or a "fail-safe" when images and or kernel or the OS itself 
get's update/upgraded.


If this cannot or will not be reliably implemented there is no point in 
implementing this in the first place from my pov.


JBG


___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Michal Sekletar]

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
 wrote:
>
>
> On 03/30/2016 03:49 PM, Michal Sekletar wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vasiliy Tolstov 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Now i want to have two entries and assign priority to it via systemd,
>>> in my use-case i want to know last succeseful boot entry and use it.
>>> After upgrade i want to boot from new antry and if it fails - change
>>> priority to lower level...
>>
>> I don't believe this is currently possible. I've tried to implement
>> similar scheme in the past. I should probably resurrect that effort,
>>
>
> Had you finished writing the kernel driver that implements some kind of (
> sysfs? ) boot counting scheme?
> ( There is no  point in implementing something in systemd until that is in
> place )

We don't need to extend the kernel in order to implement this
particular mechanism. After new kernel is installed, you make it
default and mark as "tentative". Then, after first successful boot of
newly added bootloader entry you just remove the flag, because it is
known to work.

I withdrew my PR because we discussed this with Kay and we were not
sure we liked proposed scheme which uses file on disk as "tentative"
marker.

Michal
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Vasiliy Tolstov]

2016-03-30 18:49 GMT+03:00 Michal Sekletar :
>
> I don't believe this is currently possible. I've tried to implement
> similar scheme in the past. I should probably resurrect that effort,
>
> https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/1894
>
> In the meantime, you can change default boot entry manually by
> selecting it in the menu and pressing 'd' key.


If you have time for this - i'll be very happy.

-- 
Vasiliy Tolstov,
e-mail: v.tols...@selfip.ru
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel

Re: [systemd-devel] systemd efi boot and default entry

[Michal Sekletar]

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Vasiliy Tolstov  wrote:

> Now i want to have two entries and assign priority to it via systemd,
> in my use-case i want to know last succeseful boot entry and use it.
> After upgrade i want to boot from new antry and if it fails - change
> priority to lower level...

I don't believe this is currently possible. I've tried to implement
similar scheme in the past. I should probably resurrect that effort,

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/1894

In the meantime, you can change default boot entry manually by
selecting it in the menu and pressing 'd' key.

Michal
___
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel