Re: [systemd-devel] OFFLIST Re: systemd's connections to /run/systemd/private ?
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 4:28 PM Brian Reichert wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:21:13AM +0100, > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org wrote: > > Hi Brian > > > > I feel embarrassed at having recommended you to join the systemd-devel > > list :( I don't understand why nobody is responding to you, and I'm not > > qualified to help! > > I appreciate the private feedback. I recognize this is an all-volunteer > ecosystem, but I'm not used to radio silence. :/ > > > There is a bit of anti-SUSE feeling for some reason > > that I don't really understand, but Lennart in particular normally > > seems to be very helpful, as does Zbigniew. > It seems that Lennart tends to process his mailing-list inbox only every couple of weeks. He's a bit more active on GitHub however. The rest of us are probably either waiting for a dev to make a comment, and/or wondering why such massive numbers of `systemctl` are being run on your system in the first place. > > I'm new to this list, so haven't seen any anti-SLES sentiments as > of yet. But, based on the original symptoms I reported, this occurs > on many distributions. > > > Perhaps it would be worth restating your problem. I would suggest > > sticking to the facts of the problem as you have experienced them and > > post the full logs somewhere so that people can see the problem. What is > > logged when a server fails to reboot, for example. > > I'd love to restate the problem in a way that's tractable, and > distinct from other people's reports of these symptoms. If you > search the Internet for forum messages: > > systemd "Too many concurrent connections, refusing" > > You'll see a lot of hits. The only solutions I've seen to date is > the systemd maintainers bumping up a hard-coded constant, a few > times over the last few years. > > (The fact that they've adjusted it at least twice, but never went > so far as to make it a tunable in a config file somewhere is > worrisome.) > I think there was a general expectation that almost nothing would *use* the private socket, except for `systemctl` in rare situations where the general D-Bus system bus is not [yet] available. Instead, all control (especially where efficiency was important) would flow through the main bus connection and wouldn't ever come close to hitting the private-connection cap. (That said, `systemctl` was seemingly changed post-v226 (4fbd7192c5) to always try the private socket first.) On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 22:29 Brian Reichert wrote: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:20:02PM +0100, > systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org wrote: > > > > Posting private messages to a public list is generally considered very > > RUDE. > > I agree, and I apologize. > > The message I received, and replied to, did not come from a private > email address; it apparently came from the mailing list software, > and I did not realize that until I hit 'reply': > > Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:21:13 +0100 > From: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > To: Brian Reichert > Subject: OFFLIST Re: [systemd-devel] systemd's connections to >/run/systemd/private ? > That's quite an odd glitch. Why would a private, offlist message come from the mailing list software (or be made to appear as if it came from the mailing list software)? -- Mantas Mikulėnas ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] OFFLIST Re: systemd's connections to /run/systemd/private ?
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:20:02PM +0100, systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org wrote: > > Posting private messages to a public list is generally considered very > RUDE. I agree, and I apologize. The message I received, and replied to, did not come from a private email address; it apparently came from the mailing list software, and I did not realize that until I hit 'reply': Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2019 11:21:13 +0100 From: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org To: Brian Reichert Subject: OFFLIST Re: [systemd-devel] systemd's connections to /run/systemd/private ? -- Brian Reichert BSD admin/developer at large ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] OFFLIST Re: systemd's connections to /run/systemd/private ?
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 11:21:13AM +0100, systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org wrote: > Hi Brian > > I feel embarrassed at having recommended you to join the systemd-devel > list :( I don't understand why nobody is responding to you, and I'm not > qualified to help! I appreciate the private feedback. I recognize this is an all-volunteer ecosystem, but I'm not used to radio silence. :/ > There is a bit of anti-SUSE feeling for some reason > that I don't really understand, but Lennart in particular normally > seems to be very helpful, as does Zbigniew. I'm new to this list, so haven't seen any anti-SLES sentiments as of yet. But, based on the original symptoms I reported, this occurs on many distributions. > Perhaps it would be worth restating your problem. I would suggest > sticking to the facts of the problem as you have experienced them and > post the full logs somewhere so that people can see the problem. What is > logged when a server fails to reboot, for example. I'd love to restate the problem in a way that's tractable, and distinct from other people's reports of these symptoms. If you search the Internet for forum messages: systemd "Too many concurrent connections, refusing" You'll see a lot of hits. The only solutions I've seen to date is the systemd maintainers bumping up a hard-coded constant, a few times over the last few years. (The fact that they've adjusted it at least twice, but never went so far as to make it a tunable in a config file somewhere is worrisome.) > Just report a bug for people to > solve. I wanted to avoid calling it a 'bug' report, as I wanted to establish what expected behavior is. But, your advice isn't bad. I'll try to come up with something more succinct. Thanks again... > HTH, Dave > -- Brian Reichert BSD admin/developer at large ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Recent changes to 99-default.link and udevadm
PS: > and the command fails. What I find curious is that the commit introduces > a message stating that the match section should be added using "Name=*" > (which I verified would also work for me) but instead adds a > "OriginalName=*" match. Okay, just realized that this is not actually true, I confused two messages in the commit. It does say to add OriginalName: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/84ea567eb4326eb970a33188649fde6bea2a0d4e#diff-cb2095e403562de6eea8026fcf758db3R167 But then the question is of course why this does not seem to work? Thanks, Conrad ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] Recent changes to 99-default.link and udevadm
Hi all, I have a question about https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/84ea567eb4326eb970a33188649fde6bea2a0d4e I am running systemd 242 (242.32-2-arch) which seems to inlude these changes. Basically, I suspect that, related to that change, running `udevadm test-builtin net_setup_link` fails on my machine, because it cannot find a matching file. Without the match section, I do get the warning added in that commit, but the command returns successfully. With the match section on OriginalName, like in the commit, I get: Config file /usr/lib/systemd/network/99-default.link matches device based on renamed interface name 'wlp2s0', ignoring wlp2s0: No matching link configuration found and the command fails. What I find curious is that the commit introduces a message stating that the match section should be added using "Name=*" (which I verified would also work for me) but instead adds a "OriginalName=*" match. Since this is the default link file, I suppose it really should match anything, so why is this using OriginalName? Or is the problem the part where this file is being ignored? Thanks a lot, Conrad ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Is "systemctl status --state=failed" expected to fail silently?
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 10:23:47AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >>> Zbigniew Jedrzejewski-Szmek schrieb am 09.07.2019 um > 10:05 > in Nachricht <20190709080527.gk17...@in.waw.pl>: > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:49:32AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> It seems "‑‑state=failed" is being ignored silently for "systemctl status" > (in > > version 228). Is this by design? > > > > Nope. In 242‑1092+ it seems to work fine. > > In v228 is is effective for "list-units", but not for "status"... Oh, right. I checked "list-units", but not "status". "systemctl status 'systemd*' --state=running" and "systemctl status 'systemd*' --state=failed" both seem to do the right thing here. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] Antw: Re: Is "systemctl status --state=failed" expected to fail silently?
>>> Zbigniew Jedrzejewski-Szmek schrieb am 09.07.2019 um 10:05 in Nachricht <20190709080527.gk17...@in.waw.pl>: > On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:49:32AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: >> Hi! >> >> It seems "‑‑state=failed" is being ignored silently for "systemctl status" (in > version 228). Is this by design? > > Nope. In 242‑1092+ it seems to work fine. In v228 is is effective for "list-units", but not for "status"... > > Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] Is "systemctl status --state=failed" expected to fail silently?
On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 08:49:32AM +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > Hi! > > It seems "--state=failed" is being ignored silently for "systemctl status" > (in version 228). Is this by design? Nope. In 242-1092+ it seems to work fine. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] Is "systemctl status --state=failed" expected to fail silently?
Hi! It seems "--state=failed" is being ignored silently for "systemctl status" (in version 228). Is this by design? Regards, Ulrich ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
