On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 3:38 PM Windl, Ulrich <u.wi...@ukr.de> wrote: > > Hi! > > Top-posting this time: > Reading the manual carefully, I recognized an asymmetry: > OnActiveSec= defines a timer relative to the moment the timer itself is > activated. > OnUnitInactiveSec= defines a timer relative to when the unit the timer is > activating was last deactivated. > > Also the manual des not state WHERE that state is remembered. >
Did you try to search for the Persistent= directive? Without persistence, the state is lost when systemd is restarted (may be daemon-reload keeps it). > > -----Original Message----- > > From: systemd-devel <systemd-devel-boun...@lists.freedesktop.org> On > > Behalf Of Windl, Ulrich > > Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2024 10:26 AM > > To: Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com>; Mantas Mikulėnas > > <graw...@gmail.com> > > Cc: systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [systemd-devel] Re: "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing" > > issue > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> > > > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2024 1:19 PM > > > To: Mantas Mikulėnas <graw...@gmail.com> > > > Cc: Windl, Ulrich <u.wi...@ukr.de>; systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org > > > Subject: [EXT] Re: [systemd-devel] "OnUnitInactiveSec Timer not firing" > > issue > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2024 at 2:12 PM Mantas Mikulėnas <graw...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> > > > >> Furthermore it seems to be necessary to run the service unit itself, > > > >> too > > > (assuming it must be enabled also, right?) > > > > > > > > > > > > No. The purpose of the timer is to start the service, so starting the > > > > service > > > manually (or "enabling" it, to be started on boot) would be redundant. > > > > > > > > > > OnUnitInactiveSec begins counting when service gets stopped. How is > > > this timer supposed to start a service that was never active (and > > > hence never stopped) before? > > [Windl, Ulrich] > > > > OK, so what would you suggest instead? > > Alternatively, can you explain where OnUnitInactiveSec would make sense? >
