Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

[systemd-devel] My experience with MySQL and systemctl

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] high latency on systemd-resolved repsonses of LLMNR names

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: > > > > > >

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] high latency on systemd-resolved repsonses of LLMNR names

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] high latency on systemd-resolved repsonses of LLMNR names

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

Re: [systemd-devel] high latency on systemd-resolved repsonses of LLMNR names

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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 > > >

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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,

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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"

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] high latency on systemd-resolved repsonses of LLMNR names

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:

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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 >>>

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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

Re: [systemd-devel] more verbose debug info than systemd.log_level=debug?

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.