On Wednesday 12 October 2011 17:54:27 Barry Scott wrote:
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 16:42:38 Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 10/12/2011 04:54 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
What dependency is supposed to cause the swapoff to be after the
production
processes are stopped?
The units' ordering
Thanks to Michal's observation that swapoff failed we have now found the root
cause.
swapoff is called while all our production processes are still running.
We would have expected systemd to turn off swap after stopping most if not
all processes and thus freeing up as much memory as possible.
On 10/12/2011 03:46 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
Thanks to Michal's observation that swapoff failed we have now found the
root cause.
swapoff is called while all our production processes are still running.
We would have expected systemd to turn off swap after stopping most if not
all processes and
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:27:10 Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 10/12/2011 03:46 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
Thanks to Michal's observation that swapoff failed we have now found the
root cause.
swapoff is called while all our production processes are still running.
We would have expected
On 10/12/2011 04:54 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
What dependency is supposed to cause the swapoff to be after the production
processes are stopped?
The units' ordering should be something like this:
*.swap Before swap.target Before sysinit.target Before basic.target
Before production.service
This
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 16:42:38 Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 10/12/2011 04:54 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
What dependency is supposed to cause the swapoff to be after the production
processes are stopped?
The units' ordering should be something like this:
*.swap Before swap.target Before
On 10/11/2011 12:44 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
The full log is here:
http://onelanftp.co.uk/bscott/ntb10117.netconsole.txt
The first boot sequence from lines 1-182 works.
The second from 188-1182 has the problem.
If the kernel is at fault then I would expect to see the
About to execute:
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 12:37:23 Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 10/11/2011 12:44 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
The full log is here:
http://onelanftp.co.uk/bscott/ntb10117.netconsole.txt
The first boot sequence from lines 1-182 works.
The second from 188-1182 has the problem.
If the
On 10/11/2011 05:09 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
I have uploaded full netconsole logs with the options you suggested:
http://onelanftp.co.uk/bscott/netconsole.noreboot.txt
http://onelanftp.co.uk/bscott/netconsole.reboot.txt
A suspicious moment occurring only in the failing case is:
[ 751.743255]
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 16:35:00 Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 10/11/2011 05:09 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
I have uploaded full netconsole logs with the options you suggested:
http://onelanftp.co.uk/bscott/netconsole.noreboot.txt
http://onelanftp.co.uk/bscott/netconsole.reboot.txt
A
On Thu, 06.10.11 15:56, Barry Scott (barry.sc...@onelan.co.uk) wrote:
We can reproducably get an F15 system in a state that it fails to
complete a reboot.
Becuase all the logging, network and getty's has been stopped all
we can see is the kernel messages on the console.
What we need to
On 10/06/2011 07:26 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
On Thursday 06 October 2011 15:56:43 Barry Scott wrote:
We can reproducably get an F15 system in a state that it fails to
complete a reboot.
Then can you suggest how to reproduce it?
The obvious difference between a reboot that works and one
On Thursday 06 October 2011 15:56:43 Barry Scott wrote:
We can reproducably get an F15 system in a state that it fails to
complete a reboot.
Becuase all the logging, network and getty's has been stopped all
we can see is the kernel messages on the console.
What we need to know is why
13 matches
Mail list logo
