Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Dan Williams]

On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 10:51 +, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Dan Williams a écrit :
> > It's complicated.  Previous mechanisms didn't have a daemon running in
> > the background actively managing the network.  So there was nothing to
> > restart.  Unfortunately using Unix signals there's no way to really
> > express "terminate but don't take stuff down".
> 
> Using sigaction() you can give the semantic of your choice to any
> signal.  Correct if I am wrong but a lot of daemons already do that to
> implement things like "/etc/init.d/foo reload".

Yeah, that's also a good point.  HUP and USR1 are already reserved (in
mind at least, not implemented) so maybe USR2 or something.

Dan

> 
> > We could however use a D-Bus call to do so, or something like that and
> > keep -TERM as taking interfaces down.
> 
> Unix signals are infinitely inferior to D-BUS. Yet they look like the
> right tool for this simple job, don't they?
> 
> 
> Implemented one way or the other, this new "quit" feature would be nice.
> 
> ___
> NetworkManager-list mailing list
> NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list


___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Marc Herbert]

Dan Williams a écrit :
> It's complicated.  Previous mechanisms didn't have a daemon running in
> the background actively managing the network.  So there was nothing to
> restart.  Unfortunately using Unix signals there's no way to really
> express "terminate but don't take stuff down".

Using sigaction() you can give the semantic of your choice to any
signal.  Correct if I am wrong but a lot of daemons already do that to
implement things like "/etc/init.d/foo reload".


> We could however use a D-Bus call to do so, or something like that and
> keep -TERM as taking interfaces down.

Unix signals are infinitely inferior to D-BUS. Yet they look like the
right tool for this simple job, don't they?


Implemented one way or the other, this new "quit" feature would be nice.

___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Marc Herbert]

Graham Lyon a écrit :
> The point you're missing here is that network manager solves a very real
> problem with links going down after boot time and not automatically
> coming back up when they're available again (Read as: laptop users). A
> daemon was necessary to fix this and nothing like it had been done
> before. The design, therefore, is not perfect and so regressions are
> inevitable. This does not mean, however, the the init scripts were
> better - they just had 15 years or so to mature ;)

I fully second that.

On the one hand I hate it when NM is breaking good old features
(sometimes gratuitously). On the other hand the energy with which NM
tries to automagically keep you on-line at all times is truly impressive
and something that was very badly missing from the Linux desktop.

I will keep constantly looking for the single and ideal tool that
combines the best of the "old" and "new" worlds. Even if it does not end
up being NM, at least it showed some skill.

Cheers,

Marc

___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Larry Finger]

On 02/27/2010 11:05 AM, Graham Lyon wrote:
> The point you're missing here is that network manager solves a very real
> problem with links going down after boot time and not automatically
> coming back up when they're available again (Read as: laptop users). A
> daemon was necessary to fix this and nothing like it had been done
> before. The design, therefore, is not perfect and so regressions are
> inevitable. This does not mean, however, the the init scripts were
> better - they just had 15 years or so to mature ;)
> 
> On 27 February 2010 14:47, Dominik George  > wrote:
> 
> 
> > For use on servers: because it means that you only have to learn
> one tool.
> > Also, why not? ;)
> >
> This, dear fellow user, I will not discuss publicly, as I would probably
> be banned from the list ;).
> 
> In short: NetworkManager is all in all a single pain in the a . Both
> on Desktops *and* on servers.
> 
> So why not stick to traditional runlevel control when t is known to work
> better?

If you move around and connect to multiple AP's, traditional runlevel control is
a PITA. With NM, you can create the new connection with the GUI. If it already
exists, a single click brings it up. For systems with only wired connections, I
don't use it, but if it has wireless, it is very useful.

Larry

___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Graham Lyon]

The point you're missing here is that network manager solves a very real
problem with links going down after boot time and not automatically coming
back up when they're available again (Read as: laptop users). A daemon was
necessary to fix this and nothing like it had been done before. The design,
therefore, is not perfect and so regressions are inevitable. This does not
mean, however, the the init scripts were better - they just had 15 years or
so to mature ;)

On 27 February 2010 14:47, Dominik George  wrote:

>
> > For use on servers: because it means that you only have to learn one
> tool.
> > Also, why not? ;)
> >
> This, dear fellow user, I will not discuss publicly, as I would probably
> be banned from the list ;).
>
> In short: NetworkManager is all in all a single pain in the a . Both
> on Desktops *and* on servers.
>
> So why not stick to traditional runlevel control when t is known to work
> better?
>
> -nik
>
>
___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Graham Lyon]

For use on servers: because it means that you only have to learn one tool.
Also, why not? ;)

On 27 February 2010 08:30, Dominik George  wrote:

>
> > That's correct, at least for some wired devices with a system
> > connection.  It's to ensure that restarting NM as part of a security
> > update or whatever does not interrupt network connectivity server-type
> > boxes.
> >
> I still don't get why people would want to use NetworkManager on servers
> anyway. But that's another topic (however, if someone feels like
> explaining, I'll not stop her ;)).
>
>
> ___
> NetworkManager-list mailing list
> NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
>
>
___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Dominik George]

> That's correct, at least for some wired devices with a system
> connection.  It's to ensure that restarting NM as part of a security
> update or whatever does not interrupt network connectivity server-type
> boxes.
>   
I still don't get why people would want to use NetworkManager on servers
anyway. But that's another topic (however, if someone feels like
explaining, I'll not stop her ;)).



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Dan Williams]

On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 12:57 +, Marc Herbert wrote:
> Dominik George a écrit :
> > 
> > If NM replaces traditional networking in RC, then what I would expect 
> > that it will get networking up on start and down on stop. That's exactly 
> > what you describe NM to be doing ;).
> > 
> > Or am I misunderstanding something?
> 
> In 0.7.1, yes. But according to Dan, not any more in 0.8.X.

That's correct, at least for some wired devices with a system
connection.  It's to ensure that restarting NM as part of a security
update or whatever does not interrupt network connectivity server-type
boxes.

It's complicated.  Previous mechanisms didn't have a daemon running in
the background actively managing the network.  So there was nothing to
restart.  Unfortunately using Unix signals there's no way to really
express "terminate but don't take stuff down".  We could however use a
D-Bus call to do so, or something like that and keep -TERM as taking
interfaces down.

Dan


___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Marc Herbert]

Dominik George a écrit :
> 
> If NM replaces traditional networking in RC, then what I would expect 
> that it will get networking up on start and down on stop. That's exactly 
> what you describe NM to be doing ;).
> 
> Or am I misunderstanding something?

In 0.7.1, yes. But according to Dan, not any more in 0.8.X.

___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list

Re: "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager quit" ?

[Dominik George]

I am afraid that this new "half stop" is going to confuse people.  In
most systems "/etc/init.d/NetworkManager" is replacing
"/etc/init.d/network[ing]". The latter, older one used to connect the
system on "start" and disconnect it on "stop". Simple. Now the new one
will disconnect the system... sometimes. Sometimes not. And it might
even leave a running process behind. This will surprise people.
   


If NM replaces traditional networking in RC, then what I would expect 
that it will get networking up on start and down on stop. That's exactly 
what you describe NM to be doing ;).


Or am I misunderstanding something?

-nik
___
NetworkManager-list mailing list
NetworkManager-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list