On Thu, 09.04.15 12:26, Andrei Borzenkov (arvidj...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Lennart Poettering
> 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
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Lennart Poettering
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 level synchronization
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 trhea
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 f
Reindl Harald 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 distribution unit-
Am 20.03.2015 um 21:43 schrieb Kai Krakow:
PLEASE stop to hang on mysqld, i just explained why staring a service in
foreground don't help in any case, the opposite is true, hence i changed
the clamd-service which is default forground started to forking to order
clamav-milter correctly (just anot
Reindl Harald 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
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 w
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 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 for smbd/nmbd..
Michael Biebl schrieb:
> 2015-03-20 9:12 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald :
>>
>> Am 19.03.2015 um 23:56 schrieb Kai Krakow:
>>
>>> Reindl Harald schrieb:
>>>
Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
>
> Christoph Pleger schrieb:
>
>> I am experimenting a little with systemd and t
On Fri, 2015-03-20 at 10:24 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Kai Krakow 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 sysvi
Hello,
"Dimitri John Ledkov" 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 that between ba
2015-03-20 9:12 GMT+01:00 Reindl Harald :
>
> Am 19.03.2015 um 23:56 schrieb Kai Krakow:
>
>> Reindl Harald schrieb:
>>
>>> Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Christoph Pleger schrieb:
> I am experimenting a little with systemd and trying to define a new
> "intermed
Am 19.03.2015 um 23:56 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Reindl Harald schrieb:
Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Christoph Pleger schrieb:
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 m
Andrei Borzenkov schrieb:
> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Kai Krakow 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 obv
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Kai Krakow 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 working
> way altho
Reindl Harald schrieb:
> Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
>> Christoph Pleger schrieb:
>>
>>> 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
Am 19.03.2015 um 22:04 schrieb Kai Krakow:
Christoph Pleger schrieb:
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 t
Christoph Pleger schrieb:
> 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 bas
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 wrote:
The summary of my reply was "What you probably want, is hook into
basic.target or sysinit.target, use DefaultDependencies=no, and
specif
On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 18:41 +0300, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Michael Biebl 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 explic
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Michael Biebl 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 is, this
2015-03-19 15:46 GMT+01:00 Uoti Urpala :
> 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
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
> >> m
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Christoph Pleger
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 for basic.target and
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, as
On 19 March 2015 at 12:09, Christoph Pleger
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 can already
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Christoph Pleger
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 can a
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Christoph Pleger
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 can a
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 be
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 be
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Christoph Pleger
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
>>> required
>>> by my n
On 19 March 2015 at 10:00, Christoph Pleger
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
>>> required
>>> by my new run
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
>>
В Wed, 18 Mar 2015 17:10:11 +0100
"Christoph Pleger" 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 required
> by my new runl
37 matches
Mail list logo
