Hi all, On 6/15/06, Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 01:29:20PM -0700, David Bustos wrote: > > Quoth Darren Reed on Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 10:18:30PM +0800: > > > Maybe what should be said here is that SMF isn't trying hard > > > enough to disable a service. I didn't dig into the why it doesn't > > > try harder. Is it waiting for it to become "online" (properly) so > > > it can then "offline" it? I hope not. > > > > That's exactly what it's doing. I don't recall whether there's a good > > reason for it. File a bug.
Hold on a minute... SMF is waiting for the start method to "complete" rather than for the service to come online. The start method may fail, or its just that the service is taking a long time to come up. In either case, the state of the service is unknown to SMF so I'd rather not kill the start method. Besides, we still have the timeout stuff. > Sounds like an option for disabling with prejudice is needed. How about... svcadm -f disable <service> -- -f kills all methods and processes associated with the service. -- Just me, Wire ...
