On Jan 16, 2014, at 8:25 AM, Kay Sievers <k...@vrfy.org> wrote: > 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.
Although with faster boot times, a device in fstab not existing is probably increasingly common. What about splitting the scheduling of .mount jobs such that /sysroot happens early, and everything else listed in fstab happens much later, to give the underlying device every opportunity to appear before the attempt? Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
