Re: new rc system
We discuss rc on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Feel free to send any ideas to that list. Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new rc system
Doug Barton wrote: ntpd[ate] is a very difficult thing to order, because a lot of things need/want accurate time before they start, and yet by definition, ntp is a network protocol so it has a lot of other dependencies before it can even start. A lot of the things that ntp depends on (like network) want logging before they start, but syslog wants accurate time before IT starts... and we spiral back in time infinitely. Technically, syslog only has a soft dependency on the current time, since the time is looked up each event, rather than being cached. So it has a dependency, but it's not one that prevent syslog from running or providing some minimal/degraded service level. This is a known shortcoming in the new rc system. Luke Mewburn commented on it in a talk recently but does not yet have a satisfactory solution. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by this is a known shortcoming? I believe he means the distinction between soft (would like) vs. hard (absolutely cannot run if not present) dependencies. The new rc system fails to make such distinctions: it doesn't have a high enough granularity to its dependency classification. -- Terry ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new rc system
On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:00:49PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: [re-ordering rc.d scripts] This is a known shortcoming in the new rc system. Luke Mewburn commented on it in a talk recently but does not yet have a satisfactory solution. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by this is a known shortcoming? The files in /etc/rc.d/ include dependency information in the form of 'BEFORE' and 'REQUIRE' entries. The default entries are appropriate for normal configurations but may require changes in some cases (eg Philipp's situation). The new rc system currently has no mechanism for over-riding these defaults other then by editing the individual rc files. These changes need to be re-merged if the rc files are updated. Luke is currently looking at options to allow administrators to alter the dependency order without requiring the rc files to be edited. Two possibilities are: 1) An option to rcorder that allows dependency information to be included on the command line. 2) Add a hack to rcorder so that given a file /etc/rc.d/foo, it will check for dependency information in /etc/rc.cnf/foo. Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new rc system
On Thursday, September 11, 2003, at 04:36 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote: On Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 05:00:49PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote: [re-ordering rc.d scripts] This is a known shortcoming in the new rc system. Luke Mewburn commented on it in a talk recently but does not yet have a satisfactory solution. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by this is a known shortcoming? The files in /etc/rc.d/ include dependency information in the form of 'BEFORE' and 'REQUIRE' entries. The default entries are appropriate for normal configurations but may require changes in some cases (eg Philipp's situation). The new rc system currently has no mechanism for over-riding these defaults other then by editing the individual rc files. These changes need to be re-merged if the rc files are updated. Luke is currently looking at options to allow administrators to alter the dependency order without requiring the rc files to be edited. Two possibilities are: 1) An option to rcorder that allows dependency information to be included on the command line. 2) Add a hack to rcorder so that given a file /etc/rc.d/foo, it will check for dependency information in /etc/rc.cnf/foo. My initial inclination was to write a couple of pages of ideas, for improving the rc subsystem. On second thought, I think it better not to include them until I know the appropriate recipients and/or venue. I'm not currently a contributor, am new to the freebsd-* lists, and do not yet know the people and their responsibilities. I am responding, however, because I have a number of ideas on how to improve the rc subsystem, and am willing to contribute both time and code if a new design grabs me. Except for contributing minor patches to gnutar, amanda, procmail, I'm new to opensource development. I do, however, have 20 years experience with Unix development and administration, and 4 years experience with a mix of FreeBSD 4.x and 5.x, so I should not take long to ramp up. So, whoever is responsible for this stuff, if you have room for a new person on your team, please let me know how I can get involved. ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new rc system
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote: On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:59:11PM +0200, Philipp Grau wrote: Next problem is that /etc/rc.d/ntpd is evaluated before /etc/rc.d/devfs (see the output of rcorder /etc/rc.d*) So the start of ntpd fails because it is requires the devfs link. Ntpd likes to open /dev/refclock-0. What should I do to circumvent this problem? By simply adding a # REQUIRE: devfs to the /etc/rc.d/ntpd file? Or this there some other mechanism? ntpd[ate] is a very difficult thing to order, because a lot of things need/want accurate time before they start, and yet by definition, ntp is a network protocol so it has a lot of other dependencies before it can even start. A lot of the things that ntp depends on (like network) want logging before they start, but syslog wants accurate time before IT starts... and we spiral back in time infinitely. I've currently been giving a reasonable amount of thought to a two pass concept to rc that would allow you to get a minimal system with logging up, fire up the network, do things like dns and ntp, then restart any systems that have to have accurate time to live within a running system. This is extremely non-trivial though. :) This is a known shortcoming in the new rc system. Luke Mewburn commented on it in a talk recently but does not yet have a satisfactory solution. Can you describe in more detail what you mean by this is a known shortcoming? Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: new rc system
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 12:59:11PM +0200, Philipp Grau wrote: Next problem is that /etc/rc.d/ntpd is evaluated before /etc/rc.d/devfs (see the output of rcorder /etc/rc.d*) So the start of ntpd fails because it is requires the devfs link. Ntpd likes to open /dev/refclock-0. What should I do to circumvent this problem? By simply adding a # REQUIRE: devfs to the /etc/rc.d/ntpd file? Or this there some other mechanism? This is a known shortcoming in the new rc system. Luke Mewburn commented on it in a talk recently but does not yet have a satisfactory solution. Assuming there is no implicit dependency on ntpd by devfs, adding # REQUIRE: devfs to /etc/rc.d/ntpd should work as would adding # BEFORE: ntpd to /etc/rc.d/devfs. You will need to remember to merge this change into future updates. Another option may be to create a dummy new rc.d file that contains both the above lines. Peter ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
