Mike Gerdts wrote: > I'm looking for some clarification on how file dependencies are > supposed to work. > > At http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6240573 it says: > >> file:// dependencies are currently overused by SMF consumers. The problem >> is that a file:// dependency means "wait for this file to become available >> before starting". That's not the usual case. Most users of file: >> dependencies >> are trying to express the concept that "if this file is missing, there is >> a problem." > > (dp Cc'd because he begs for it in the bug report) > > In cases where required files are automounted, this behavior doesn't > seem to be the case. Rather, the service never comes online. > Specifying a dependency on autofs is not sufficient because autofs > doesn't start to work until several seconds after it comes online.
That's probably a bug worth filing against autofs. > This causes the service to go into maintenance because the start > method doesn't exist. The best workaround (aside from not using the > automounter) is to have a start method like: > > /bin/sh -c 'while [ ! -f /path/to/cmd ] ; do sleep 1 ; done ; /path/to/cmd %m' > > However, http://bugs.opensolaris.org/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=5106165 > suggests that file dependencies are only evaluated once at service > start. This behavior, however, seems to be at odds with smf(5): > > Dependencies > Service instances may have dependencies on services or > files. Those dependencies govern when the service is started > and automatically stopped. When the dependencies of an > enabled service are not satisfied, the service is kept in > the offline state. When its dependencies are satisfied, the > service is started. . . . > > What is the correct behavior? Should a service that depends on a file > come online when the file appears? It doesn't as implemented today. 5106165 is accurate. Feel free to file a bug against smf(5), or I'll do so later today/tomorrow. liane
