On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 07:11:21PM -0700, Jordan Brown wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
>>> If we don't need to do the final sync before turning off the power, or if
>>> we can arrange for userspace involvement after the final sync, then I
>>> would hope that we could do all of the sequencing using SMF dependencies
>>> rather than by putting additional hooks into svc.startd.
>>
>> Well, yes; that implies strict shutdown ordering, at least for the last
>> one or two services.
>
> Well, sure. Isn't sequencing startup and shutdown SMF's job?
>
> Ceri Davies wrote:
>> Special casing for the root file system is undesirable; requiring a ZFS
>> root just because of this special case would be a travesty, IMHO.
>
> I haven't thought about the question deeply, but it seems that there are
> many reasons for requiring a ZFS root, not the least of which is avoiding
> the need to ask the user which file system to use for the root.
I'd personally rather use vxfs; the suggestion is that I will no longer
be able to do so? Not good.
>> As others have suggested, downgrading / to read-only sounds like the
>> best bet. Solving the question of what the hook mechanism would
>> actually look like might be the issue now. One presupposes that a
>> "magic" FMRI is out of the question?
>
> When possible, magic should be avoided. SMF is responsible for sequencing
> startup and shutdown; we should try to use it for that purpose.
Thought so. :)
Either way, I think that James is right and that if there is to be a
filthy hack for this, then it should be the onus of the UPS folk to
get their hands dirty.
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/smf-discuss/attachments/20080604/228718e1/attachment.bin>
