On Tue, Jan 17, 2023, at 11:51 AM, Peter Boy wrote: >> Am 16.01.2023 um 13:23 schrieb Lennart Poettering <mzerq...@0pointer.de>: >> >> Just to say this cleary btw: when we introduced the time-out initially >> we were coming from sysvinit where no such time-out existed at >> all. Hence we picked a conservative (i.e. overly long) value to not >> upset things too badly. And yes, some people were very much upset we >> now defaulted to a time-out. >> >> If we'd start from scratch without sysvinit heritage, I think we >> would have started with something much much lower right-away. > > When introducing a timeout, you obviously had the grace to choose a > fairly conservative (i.e. cautious) default value that did not lead to > major problems. Would be interesting what would have been if you had > started with 15 sec.
Why? it was 0 sec before systemd. If anything, the time out behavior is masking problems with services not shutting down in a timely manner. >> It >> appears to me fedora is considering switch to that now, and I >> certainly think that would make a lot of sense. > > The way it is proposed it doesn’t make a lot of sense. Desktops and > servers work very differently and have different requirements. For > servers, this proposal in its present form makes no sense at all, and > is on the contrary dangerous. Why? It's been said in this thread that servers come with a higher expectation of rebooting upon request rather than indefinitely hanging, in contrast to desktops where there can be some tolerance for delay in exchange for safety. Why should a server sysadmin's request for a reboot or shutdown be second guessed? What are the consequences of second guessing? What I've seen on Fedora Server when there are services that hold things up is invariably sshd does immediately quit so now I can't even log back in to find out what's holding up the reboot. It's quite substantially a worse Ux than on the desktop. I mean, ostensibly I know what I'm doing on my own server and don't need to be second guessed like a desktop user. At least postgresql and libvirtd are configured to inhibit reboot/shutdown indefinitely until they properly quit. Services can opt into this behavior, overriding the default. But indefinite delay would pose a bigger problem on server than on desktops, due to the loss of any feedback and control. > A strangely ignorant attitude to take a positive view of the change, > even if those affected, the customers, are upset and fear considerable > disadvantages. Only someone who is not responsible for TBs of data and > thousands of users can talk like this. The least you have to do is test > and check what effects it has and prove that the concern is unjustified. The proposal changes a default behavior. It's not itself an override. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
