URL: https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143 Title: #143: Explicitly add ordering dependency for the responders' sockets
fidencio commented: """ On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 9:46 AM, lslebodn <[email protected]> wrote: > On (28/02/17 13:01), fidencio wrote: > >I've talked to Lukáš on the office before replying the email :-) > >Anyways, no, it won't be enough. BindsTo and After *must* *go* *together*. > >We use BindsTo on all services' sockets and not using After as well may > >lead to unexpected behaviour. > > > > The main problem is that commit message is not clear enough > and contain unclear statemets e.g. > > While debugging the whole breakage reported by Stric I've noticed that > > the NSS socket has been starting up the NSS responder _before_ SSSD > > being up, leading us to a chaotic situation. > > What does chaotic situation mean here? > As far as I remember, that some services like systemd-logind will try to start and will time out. It will cause other services to timeout. So the boot will take a really long time and so services won't be working after the boot is completed. Would be enough adding this info? If not, may I ask you for some suggestion as well? > > There is also a missing context about "BindsTo". > > >By adding this ordering explicitly we can avoid the reported situation. > >Also, it has been recommend by Lukáš Nykrýn that BindsTo and After must > >be used together (although it's still not mentioned yet in the systemd > >documentation). > > IIUC "BindsTo" is a stricter relation between units then "Requires" > and therefore "After" need to be used to avoid unuexpected/undefined > behaviour. > I added something similar to your suggestion to the commit message. Thanks. Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio """ See the full comment at https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/pull/143#issuecomment-283289617
_______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
