I had an accident last night. I tried to delete a lot of rows from a
production database in one transaction. I killed the transaction, and
I didn't realise it was still rolling back an hour later when I tried
to reboot the system for updates.
I might be wrong about exactly who is doing what, but
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 3:04 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> This is specifically the case that happened for Plymouth: the binary
> probably got updated, hence the process in memory references a deleted
> file, which blocks the read-only remounting, in which case we can't
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Michael Chapman
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
>
> > Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it
> needs
> > more than the guarantees provided by sync.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what we want there? it
appears to also pause any further writes to disk (until FITHAW is
called).
So, I am still puzzled why
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Michael Chapman
wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>>
>> That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what we want there? it
>>>
On Sun, 09.04.17 19:22, Paul Freeman (p...@coredev.org.uk) wrote:
> Hi,
> We are seeing high latency (>100ms) when resolving local names via
> LLMNR.
Queries and responses in LLMNR are supposed to be delayed by a random
time up to 100ms according to the RFC. See:
On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it needs
> more than the guarantees provided by sync. Informally speaking, the FIFREEZE
> ioctl is intended to place a filesystem into a "fully consistent"
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 17:21, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
Or, I think, when pivoting back to the shutdown-initramfs. (Though then you
also need the shutdown-initramfs to run `fsfreeze`, I guess?)
No, I don't think it should be done
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:26:14 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> On Sun, 09.04.17 19:22, Paul Freeman (p...@coredev.org.uk) wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > We are seeing high latency (>100ms) when resolving local names via
> > LLMNR.
>
> Queries and responses in LLMNR are
On Mon, 10.04.17 19:38, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael
On Sun, 09.04.17 22:37, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
> Oh god - that's the opposite direction to go in. There's not even
> pretend crash safety with those file systems. If they're dirty, you
> must use an fsck to get them back to consistency. Even if the toy fs
> support found in
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:04:45 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> > Remember, all of this is because there *is* software that does the
> > wrong thing, and it *is* possible for software to hang and be
> > unkillable. It would be good for systemd to do the right thing even
On Mon, 10.04.17 13:50, Kai Krakow (hurikha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > According to RFC2119, the terminology SHOULD suggests that systemd
> > > could maybe make this configurable? Maybe taking the proper
> > > warnings for this configuration into account for administrators...
> > > Still you
On Mon, 10.04.17 13:43, Kai Krakow (hurikha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:04:45 +0200
> schrieb Lennart Poettering :
>
> > > Remember, all of this is because there *is* software that does the
> > > wrong thing, and it *is* possible for software to hang and
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 12:46:02 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> On Mon, 10.04.17 12:41, Kai Krakow (hurikha...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > > Queries and responses in LLMNR are supposed to be delayed by a
> > > random time up to 100ms according to the RFC. See:
> > >
> > >
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 19:38, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On
On Mon, 10.04.17 12:41, Kai Krakow (hurikha...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > Queries and responses in LLMNR are supposed to be delayed by a random
> > time up to 100ms according to the RFC. See:
> >
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4795 section 2.7, and section 7.
> >
> > If you add up the delay for
On Mon, 10.04.17 19:07, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> > So no, "freeze" is not an option. That sounds like a recipe to make
> > shutdown hang. We need a sync() that actually does what is documented
> > and sync the file system properly.
>
> sync() is never going to work the
Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 13:54:27 +0200
schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> On Mon, 10.04.17 13:43, Kai Krakow (hurikha...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > Am Mon, 10 Apr 2017 11:04:45 +0200
> > schrieb Lennart Poettering :
> >
> [...]
> > >
> > > Yeah, we do
On Mon, 10.04.17 16:14, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what we want there? it
> > > appears
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it needs
more than the guarantees provided by sync. Informally speaking, the FIFREEZE
ioctl is intended to
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 16:14, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
That said, are you sure FIFREEZE is really what
On Mon, 10.04.17 17:21, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> > Or, I think, when pivoting back to the shutdown-initramfs. (Though then you
> > also need the shutdown-initramfs to run `fsfreeze`, I guess?)
>
> No, I don't think it should be done then. If a filesystem is still in use,
On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
> >
> > > Don't forget, they've provided an interface for software to use if it
> > > needs
> > >
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 10.04.17 18:45, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Sun, 09.04.17 10:11, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
Don't forget, they've provided an interface for
On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Mon, 10.04.17 19:07, Michael Chapman (m...@very.puzzling.org) wrote:
>
>> > So no, "freeze" is not an option. That sounds like a recipe to make
>> > shutdown hang. We need a sync() that actually does what is
27 matches
Mail list logo