On Fri, 12.09.14 15:25, Dale R. Worley (wor...@alum.mit.edu) wrote:
> > From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
>
> > Step back, and define exactly what it is you actually need^Wwant to do.
>
> For a certain entry in /etc/fstab (which will in practice always have
> the option "nofail"), if the device is no
> From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
> That's not to say that it didn't happen to work most of the time. I
> just hoped systemd could do better. I still do.
I agree that systemd's current default behavior is better than the
previous default. But there are some cases where I can easily define
behavior
Hallo,
On 14 September 2014 19:49, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> В Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:53:27 +0200
> Tobias Geerinckx-Rice пишет:
>>
>> From my reading of the thread, this is to emulate as closely ye olde
>> initscripts' unreliable and flawed behaviour of attempting to mount
>> one or more devices e
> From: Andrei Borzenkov
> At least, it is impossible to achieve what the goal of OP was -
> attempt to automount device exactly once on system boot and give up if
> it was not successful. Which had been semantic of /etc/fstab for quite
> some time.
I don't have a need to "automount device exact
В Thu, 11 Sep 2014 21:53:27 +0200
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice пишет:
>
> Step back, and define exactly what it is you actually need^Wwant to do.
>
It was described clear enough already.
> From my reading of the thread, this is to emulate as closely ye olde
> initscripts' unreliable and flawed behav
В Thu, 11 Sep 2014 13:41:25 -0400
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) пишет:
> > From: Colin Guthrie
>
> > I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
> > framework program mount(8)?
> >
> > It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all mounts
> >
В Thu, 4 Sep 2014 18:32:20 -0400
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) пишет:
> > From: Andrei Borzenkov
>
> > bor@opensuse:~/src/systemd> systemctl show boot.mount -p WantedBy
> > --no-pager
> > WantedBy=dev-sda1.device
> >
> > Which has the effect that if device was not present at boot but a
> From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice
> Step back, and define exactly what it is you actually need^Wwant to do.
For a certain entry in /etc/fstab (which will in practice always have
the option "nofail"), if the device is not available "until booting is
over" (which I'm willing to denote with a specified
Hallo,
On 11 September 2014 19:41, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> > From: Colin Guthrie
> > I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
> > framework program mount(8)?
> >
> > It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all mounts
> > and then calling out to
> From: Colin Guthrie
> I'm maybe missing something, but in the case of mount units, isn't that
> framework program mount(8)?
>
> It has a mechanism for parsing default options that apply to all mounts
> and then calling out to the appropriate, filesystem specific mount
> program (e.g. mount.nfs
Dale R. Worley wrote on 10/09/14 20:56:
>> From: Mantas Mikulėnas
>
>>> What I was thinking of is, what is the program that reads (directly or
>>> indirectly) the Store.mount file and from that decides exactly how to
>>> call mount(8), and when to call it?
>>
>> It's systemd itself (pid 1).
>>
>>
> From: Mantas Mikulėnas
> > What I was thinking of is, what is the program that reads (directly or
> > indirectly) the Store.mount file and from that decides exactly how to
> > call mount(8), and when to call it?
>
> It's systemd itself (pid 1).
>
> > My guess was that the name of this program
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 10:32 PM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> From: Simon McVittie
>
>> > In my "Store.mount" file, I see no indication of an executable which
>> > implements the unit.
>>
>> I think it's always mount(8), which has its own extension mechanism to
>> dispatch per-filesystem if necessary
> From: Simon McVittie
> > In my "Store.mount" file, I see no indication of an executable which
> > implements the unit.
>
> I think it's always mount(8), which has its own extension mechanism to
> dispatch per-filesystem if necessary (e.g. mount.cifs).
What I was thinking of is, what is the pr
On 04/09/14 23:32, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> I admit that I haven't studied systemd enough to understand the
> significance of WantedBy. My understanding is that systemd performs a
> series of units, with dependencies showing which units must finish
> before other units start.
Sort of. It has a goa
> From: Andrei Borzenkov
> bor@opensuse:~/src/systemd> systemctl show boot.mount -p WantedBy --no-pager
> WantedBy=dev-sda1.device
>
> Which has the effect that if device was not present at boot but appears
> later, the very appearance of device triggers start of mount unit -
> filesystem gets
В Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:59:05 -0400
wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) пишет:
> > From: wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
>
> >When reading /etc/fstab a few special mount options are
> >understood by systemd which influence how dependencies are
> >created for mount poin
> From: wor...@alum.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
>When reading /etc/fstab a few special mount options are
>understood by systemd which influence how dependencies are
>created for mount points from /etc/fstab. [...] If
>x-systemd.device-timeout= is specified it may be u
> From: Andrei Borzenkov
> > > Here's an interesting fact: What systemd does (in this situation)
> > > isn't true automounting; rather it waits for the *first* time the
> > > device/volume becomes available, and then mounts it. Any later
> > > attachments of the volume do not cause mounting (un
> From: Mantas Mikulėnas
> For fstab, the units are created by a 'generator'
> (systemd-fstab-generator), which writes them under /run/systemd/generator
> every time the configuration is reloaded.
>
> I'm not at my PC right now so I cannot check, but I /do/ remember someone
> mentioning that if
В Thu, 28 Aug 2014 00:31:49 +0300
Mantas Mikulėnas пишет:
> On Aug 27, 2014 10:03 PM, "Dale R. Worley" wrote:
> >
> > > From: Thomas Suckow
> > >
> > > >> From: Lennart Poettering
> > > >
> > > >> Note that a concept of "mount at boot if it is there, otherwise
> don't"
> > > >> cannot work.
>
On Aug 27, 2014 10:03 PM, "Dale R. Worley" wrote:
>
> > From: Thomas Suckow
> >
> > >> From: Lennart Poettering
> > >
> > >> Note that a concept of "mount at boot if it is there, otherwise
don't"
> > >> cannot work.
> > >
> > > It worked until a week or two ago. I want it back.
> > >
> > > I'm
> From: Thomas Suckow
>
> >> From: Lennart Poettering
> >
> >> Note that a concept of "mount at boot if it is there, otherwise don't"
> >> cannot work.
> >
> > It worked until a week or two ago. I want it back.
> >
> > I'm sure you're right that in the abstract, it cannot be made to
> > work.
On 08/20/2014 06:46 AM, Dale R. Worley wrote:
From: Lennart Poettering
Note that a concept of "mount at boot if it is there, otherwise don't"
cannot work.
It worked until a week or two ago. I want it back.
I'm sure you're right that in the abstract, it cannot be made to
work. But that is
> From: Lennart Poettering
> Note that a concept of "mount at boot if it is there, otherwise don't"
> cannot work.
It worked until a week or two ago. I want it back.
I'm sure you're right that in the abstract, it cannot be made to
work. But that isn't the problem I'm facing.
Dale
___
On Tue, 19.08.14 15:56, Dale R. Worley (wor...@alum.mit.edu) wrote:
> (This is more proper for a systemd-users mailing list, but I can't
> find one.)
>
> I'd like to customize my systemd. (I'm running Fedora Linux 19, with
> systemd-204-20.fc19.x86_64.)
>
> I have a line in /etc/fstab like this
(This is more proper for a systemd-users mailing list, but I can't
find one.)
I'd like to customize my systemd. (I'm running Fedora Linux 19, with
systemd-204-20.fc19.x86_64.)
I have a line in /etc/fstab like this, which refers to a logical
volume on a USB storage device:
/dev/Freeze02/Store2
27 matches
Mail list logo
