On Wed, 18.03.15 17:10, Christoph Pleger (christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de)
wrote:
Warming up this old thread...
Why does systemd not follow the above instructions to start the services
of test.target after those of basic.target and before those of
multi-user.target?
I figure this trhead
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
order it after the precise units you need from early boot,
This is fragile because it will break every time precise units
change. This is exact reason why we have systemd.special man page at
all - to provide high
On Thu, 09.04.15 12:26, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Lennart Poettering
lenn...@poettering.net wrote:
order it after the precise units you need from early boot,
This is fragile because it will break every time precise units
change. This is
Andrei Borzenkov arvidj...@gmail.com schrieb:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Kai Krakow hurikha...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is: Let's just find out why the intuitive way to solve the
OPs problem doesn't work out and find the right solution. Let's face it:
Trying to use targets as
Am 19.03.2015 um 23:56 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net schrieb:
Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Christoph Pleger christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de schrieb:
I am experimenting a little with systemd and trying to define a new
intermediate runlevel, a
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Kai Krakow hurikha...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is: Let's just find out why the intuitive way to solve the OPs
problem doesn't work out and find the right solution. Let's face it: Trying
to use targets as sysvinit runlevels equivalent is obviously not the
2015-03-20 9:12 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
Am 19.03.2015 um 23:56 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net schrieb:
Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Christoph Pleger christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de schrieb:
I am experimenting a little
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 10:24 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Kai Krakow hurikha...@gmail.com wrote:
The point is: Let's just find out why the intuitive way to solve the OPs
problem doesn't work out and find the right solution. Let's face it: Trying
to use
Am 20.03.2015 um 21:19 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Since your explanation makes sense, I wonder why there is that
recommendation in the man page
because without forking you just have one process, don#t need to guess
the changing main-PID and watching the service for things like
Restart=always is
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net schrieb:
Am 20.03.2015 um 21:10 schrieb Kai Krakow:
i guess that's whay mysqld needs
ExecStartPost=/usr/libexec/mysqld-wait-ready $MAINPID having a shell
script waitig in a lopp until connections are accepted to prevent
services with After=mysqld
I
Michael Biebl mbi...@gmail.com schrieb:
2015-03-20 9:12 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
Am 19.03.2015 um 23:56 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net schrieb:
Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Christoph Pleger christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net schrieb:
with foreground you have *no control at all* becasue systemd fires up
the next service immediately, frankly systemd even don't know the
startup time of Type=simple services, hence they are missing in
systemd-anlyze blame
I wonder what's suitable
Am 20.03.2015 um 21:10 schrieb Kai Krakow:
i guess that's whay mysqld needs
ExecStartPost=/usr/libexec/mysqld-wait-ready $MAINPID having a shell
script waitig in a lopp until connections are accepted to prevent
services with After=mysqld
I think MySQL is broken in this regard as it signals
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net schrieb:
BTW: I'd be interested in your solution about removing mysqld_safe. Can I
just change the distribution service file, set the right user/group - or
do I need to take care of any other stuff that mysqld_safe prepares/does?
do *never* touch the
Am 20.03.2015 um 22:44 schrieb Kai Krakow:
I've found the bug report on Fedora bugzilla you were involved with [1]. I
guess that socket activation did not work out? I tried that also way back
when I started using systemd and it didn't really work for me.
Besides that your solution works fine
Hello,
Dimitri John Ledkov dimitri.j.led...@intel.com wrote:
I want a program to be run at boot time without any other systemd
services
starting concurrently. The program needs the services from basic.target
and may influence everything in multi-user.target and later targets, so
I
guess
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net schrieb:
Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Christoph Pleger christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de schrieb:
I am experimenting a little with systemd and trying to define a new
intermediate runlevel, a runlevel between basic.target and
Hello,
I am experimenting a little with systemd and trying to define a new
intermediate runlevel, a runlevel between basic.target and
multi-user.target. This means that I want the services which are
required
by my new runlevel to be started after all services from basic.target
have
been
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Christoph Pleger
christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de wrote:
Hello,
I am experimenting a little with systemd and trying to define a new
intermediate runlevel, a runlevel between basic.target and
multi-user.target. This means that I want the services which are
On 19 March 2015 at 10:00, Christoph Pleger
christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de wrote:
Hello,
I am experimenting a little with systemd and trying to define a new
intermediate runlevel, a runlevel between basic.target and
multi-user.target. This means that I want the services which are
On 19 March 2015 at 12:09, Christoph Pleger
christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de wrote:
Hello,
So, if the original unit file multi-user.target contains
After=basic.target rescue.service rescue.target
this after does not really mean anything and jobs wanted or required
by
multi-user.target
Hello,
So, if the original unit file multi-user.target contains
After=basic.target rescue.service rescue.target
this after does not really mean anything and jobs wanted or required
by
multi-user.target can already be started when some jobs from
basic.target
have not been started???
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Christoph Pleger
christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de wrote:
Hello,
So, if the original unit file multi-user.target contains
After=basic.target rescue.service rescue.target
this after does not really mean anything and jobs wanted or required
by
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Christoph Pleger
christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de wrote:
Hello,
So, if the original unit file multi-user.target contains
After=basic.target rescue.service rescue.target
this after does not really mean anything and jobs wanted or required
by
Am 19.03.2015 um 13:09 schrieb Christoph Pleger:
What is the the
problem you are trying to solve by implementing a new 'intermediate'
runlevel ?
I want a program to be run at boot time without any other systemd services
starting concurrently. The program needs the services from basic.target
Hello,
So, if the original unit file multi-user.target contains
After=basic.target rescue.service rescue.target
this after does not really mean anything and jobs wanted or required
by
multi-user.target can already be started when some jobs from
basic.target
have not been started???
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Christoph Pleger
christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de wrote:
Hello,
Then, I still do not understand why my definition of a new target did
not
work. What is the difference between multi-user.target waiting for
basic.target on the one hand and new.target waiting
Hello,
Then, I still do not understand why my definition of a new target did
not
work. What is the difference between multi-user.target waiting for
basic.target on the one hand and new.target waiting for basic.target and
multi-user.target waiting for new.target on the other hand, aside from
Am 19.03.2015 um 18:00 schrieb Uoti Urpala:
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:41 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Michael Biebl mbi...@gmail.com wrote:
The summary of my reply was What you probably want, is hook into
basic.target or sysinit.target, use
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:41 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Michael Biebl mbi...@gmail.com wrote:
The summary of my reply was What you probably want, is hook into
basic.target or sysinit.target, use DefaultDependencies=no, and
specify the
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 14:27 +0100, Christoph Pleger wrote:
Then, I still do not understand why my definition of a new target did
not
work. What is the difference between multi-user.target waiting for
basic.target on the one hand and new.target waiting for basic.target and
2015-03-19 15:46 GMT+01:00 Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi:
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 14:27 +0100, Christoph Pleger wrote:
Then, I still do not understand why my definition of a new target did
not
work. What is the difference between multi-user.target waiting for
basic.target on the one
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Michael Biebl mbi...@gmail.com wrote:
The summary of my reply was What you probably want, is hook into
basic.target or sysinit.target, use DefaultDependencies=no, and
specify the dependencies/orderings explicitly.
Apparently, this didn't stick.
The reality
В Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:10:11 +0100
Christoph Pleger christoph.ple...@cs.tu-dortmund.de пишет:
Hello,
I am experimenting a little with systemd and trying to define a new
intermediate runlevel, a runlevel between basic.target and
multi-user.target. This means that I want the services which are
34 matches
Mail list logo
