On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Lennart Poettering <lenn...@poettering.net> wrote: > On Thu, 16.01.14 16:14, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 03:51:02PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: >> > On Wed, 15.01.14 20:20, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) >> > wrote: >> > >> > > I was a bit surprised that for mount points the dependency >> > > Before=local-fs.target is only added when nofail is not used. >> > > This seems to be a concious decision (added by Lennart in >> > > 155da457, and then survived all the refactorings by Tom >> > > and Thomas...). Do we still want this behaviour? >> > >> > Well, "nofail" means that we shouldn't bother if the device doesn't show >> > up at boot. Now, if we add "After=" for it there, then we will time-out >> > on it (though not fail) if something else pulls it in. >> > >> > I figure this is a question what nofail really should mean: "never wait >> > for it, never fail for it" (which is the status quo), or just "usually >> > don't wait, never fail for it" (which would be the change if we added >> > After= in). I am tempted to say that the status quo is more likely what >> > people would expect, no? >> >> The problem is that with current boot speeds, "usually don't wait" means >> that it shows up at some "upredictable" time. With a bit of luck, users >> might be able to log in before such mount points which are declared in >> /etc/fstab are mounted. I think that's unexpected, because it goes againt >> the general rule that things declared in /etc/fstab (w/o automount or noauto) >> are mounted at boot. > > I'd argue that "nofail" is precisely what the admin can use to *enable* > this race. If it should be avoided to allow the user to log in before > the device has shown up and is hooked in the admin should not have used > "nofail"... > >> I'd prefer to keep things orthogonal. This feels like an "optimization" >> that it user visible. We should rather encourage people to use automounts >> if the don't want to wait for the mountpoint to come up. > > I am pretty sure people would be annoyed by this change of behaviour, > simply because every boot would still delay for 90s if the device is not > plugged in. I have the suspicion that people would really assume that > using "nofail" would make their system boot-up cleanly, without delays > if the file system cannot be found -- and that expection is something > we'd not fulfill?
man mount 8: nofail -- Do not report errors for this device if it does not exist. Right, we cannot really re-define this. It's use is established since years. Used for things like isci, which is often not available at bootup. Kay _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
