Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:35:11AM -0400, Tom H wrote: Stop in stop job isn't an adjective, it's a noun (or an attributive noun) just like office in office chair. Or it could be a verb, as in a command Stop job! :) Maybe Steve heard it years ago. :) :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=Sx=p2Ecu11tYROoNiSLK6jfqgkV1brvESYaucDP1J=+8...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 20140814_1035-0400, Tom H wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: In English, both 'stop job' and 'stopped job' are an adjective modifying a noun. The noun in both cases is 'job'. 'stop job' is a noun phrase expressing a type of job, and must be some kind of geeky usage. OTOH, the noun phrase 'stopped job' is a job that is not progressing, or not running. But in this context, 'job' must itself have a geeky, technical jargon meaning. I don't understand why you've got a bee under your bonnet because of the stop job phrase! Stop in stop job isn't an adjective, it's a noun (or an attributive noun) just like office in office chair. I wasn't aware of the existence of the term 'attributive noun' until you used it. It wasn't taught in my H.S. English class in 1949. At least, I don't remember it being taught. Google gives several descriptions of what it means that boil down to 'a noun that can be used as an adjective,' or 'a noun that is being used as an adjective.' I haven't yet understood why the distinction between 'attributive noun' and 'adjective' is important. Is it yet another independent part of speech? Distinct from both 'noun' and 'adjective'? But honestly, I don't think I would understand an explanation. English is a very irregular language, and rules of grammar are an attempt at regularity, which contradicts the spirit of the language. Best regards, -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140816224746.ga3...@big.lan.gnu
RE: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Hi, I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a That would definitely be clearer. I was interpreting it as some special systemd shutdown-ey thing which runs around trying to stop things, and that there might be various of these, and one of them has a problem. Yes, I believe this is the correct interpretation. SystemD will tell all services to stop. It will then wait until all those sevices have stopped. Some services will stop immediately, but some need a little longer to flush logs, finish servicing a request or whatever. After a period of seconds, it appears that SystemD will pop up a message to the effect of I'm still here, still responding. I'm just waiting for service X to tell me it has stopped. Given what was said earlier in the thread, I suspect this will continue for 90 seconds until it finally gives up waiting. I wonder if the people developing this are paying attention to a development in de Windows environment where the latest thing is that de service can report back that it is indeed still trying to stop and not just hung and not reporting back. Windows will now kill a service after a certain time when shutting down, in some cases it was killing a database that took A LONG TIME to shut down and cause the database to become inconsistent. If systemd is trying to become smart about stopping services it might be a good idea to have this built in. Also not just have the service report back I am still busy but also with a progress indicator which NEEDS to increase at each report so system can detect whether the service is indeed progressing towards a stopped state or hung in the getting there. Bonno Bloksma
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:35:11AM -0400, Tom H wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: In English, both 'stop job' and 'stopped job' are an adjective modifying a noun. The noun in both cases is 'job'. 'stop job' is a noun phrase expressing a type of job, and must be some kind of geeky usage. OTOH, the noun phrase 'stopped job' is a job that is not progressing, or not running. But in this context, 'job' must itself have a geeky, technical jargon meaning. I don't understand why you've got a bee under your bonnet because of the stop job phrase! Stop in stop job isn't an adjective, it's a noun (or an attributive noun) just like office in office chair. Or it could be a verb, as in a command Stop job! :) Maybe Steve heard it years ago. :) -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815114658.GH11178@tal
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Bonno Bloksma wrote: I wonder if the people developing this are paying attention to a development in de Windows environment where the latest thing is that de service can report back that it is indeed still trying to stop and not just hung and not reporting back. Windows will now kill a service after a Debian initscripts has been killing (after a timeout) any stuck services on reboot/shutdown for at least a decade. systemd does the same, only it has a longer default timeout than Debian initscripts's default timeout. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815120758.ga26...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 8/15/14, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote: On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Bonno Bloksma wrote: I wonder if the people developing this are paying attention to a development in de Windows environment where the latest thing is that de service can report back that it is indeed still trying to stop and not just hung and not reporting back. Windows will now kill a service after a Debian initscripts has been killing (after a timeout) any stuck services on reboot/shutdown for at least a decade. systemd does the same, only it has a longer default timeout than Debian initscripts's default timeout. Time to go more verbose ... at this point in systemde, I need more verbosity again (I already enabled std log/output as per earlier threads). And possibly speed up kill timeout, but I'd rather know what's balking. Ideally, as is, and if 20s is reached, dump verbose/debug output, to help me identify iff problem. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSSvrzX5EzHQuJvA28=rw2o5sQA9RWJ9Hz+a=y6b1yn...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014 09:19:48 + Bonno Bloksma b.blok...@tio.nl wrote: I wonder if the people developing this are paying attention to a development in de Windows environment where the latest thing is that de service can report back that it is indeed still trying to stop and not just hung and not reporting back. Windows will now kill a service after a certain time when shutting down, in some cases it was killing a database that took A LONG TIME to shut down and cause the database to become inconsistent. If systemd is trying to become smart about stopping services it might be a good idea to have this built in. Also not just have the service report back I am still busy but also with a progress indicator which NEEDS to increase at each report so system can detect whether the service is indeed progressing towards a stopped state or hung in the getting there. Bonno Bloksma Yes. And why stop there? Any process that's been using a lot of processor for a long time can be nice'd up so it takes smaller slices. Each process that runs will be configured to the maximum time it can take lots of processor time. Systemd can monitor the video, so that not only typing or mousing resets the timeout, but any change in the screen resets the timeout. Some processes don't work well together, and systemd can maintain a database of such processes, perhaps in Postgres, to prevent one of those processes from running if the other is already running, unless the processes themselves tell systemd they're aware of the danger and it's OK. Systemd's database should include uuid's for specific programs known to be safe, and should not start others, unless A) The program emits a uuid to systemd upon being asked to run, and B) that uuid has been put in the database either by the distribution or by the system administrator. Before running, systemd will check the md5sum of the executable to make sure it matches the uuid. Because this might be a hardship during development, the systemd database will have a column called lax, which, if true, allows the program to run as long as the program submits the proper password. I'm conceptually not a fan of systemd, but you have to admit it opens up many opportunities. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815093814.07cde...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 09:38:14AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: Some processes don't work well together, and systemd can maintain a database of such processes, perhaps in Postgres, to prevent one of those processes from running if the other is already running, unless the processes themselves tell systemd they're aware of the danger and it's OK. Systemd's database should include uuid's for specific programs known to be safe, and should not start others, unless A) The program emits a uuid to systemd upon being asked to run, and B) that uuid has been put in the database either by the distribution or by the system administrator. Before running, systemd will check the md5sum of the executable to make sure it matches the uuid. Because this might be a hardship during development, the systemd database will have a column called lax, which, if true, allows the program to run as long as the program submits the proper password. I'm conceptually not a fan of systemd, but you have to admit it opens up many opportunities. You mean systemd should shoulder some of the kernel's work? LOL Please please, Mr Poettering, I mean it as a joke, honest! -- If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815141248.GA19964@tal
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Le 12/08/2014 17:48, Michael Biebl a écrit : Am 12.08.2014 17:16, schrieb Hugo Vanwoerkom: Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. Well, yeah. halt is not supposed to power off your system. But that is most likely not the issue Zenaan is having SAme thing wirh stop computer in KDE. Should we file a bug with gravty corresponding to breaks unrelated package ? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ee3a99.7000...@rail.eu.org
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Erwan David wrote: Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. The halt/reboot/poweroff binary shipped from sysvinit source will request a direct power-off, halt or reboot to the kernel. Just give it the -f option. And don't complain if this causes data loss. The manpage of systemd's halt/reboot/poweroff command seems to imply it supports the -f option. Again, don't complain if the use of the -f option causes data loss. That said, it is not that uncommon for the kernel to not find a way to safely power down a X86 box. I won't go into the gory details of why, but regressions in kernel power-off support are not unheard of. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815174114.gd2...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Fri, 15 Aug 2014, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote: Bonno Bloksma: I wonder if the people developing this are paying attention to a development in de Windows environment where the latest thing is that de service can report back that it is indeed still trying to stop and not just hung and not reporting back. Henrique de Moraes Holschuh: Debian initscripts has been killing (after a timeout) any stuck services on reboot/shutdown for at least a decade. M. Bloksma was, however, talking about the scenario where the SCM does not kill the service and the service is not stuck. Indeed, my fault: I misread. Sorry about that, Mr. Bloksma. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815180413.gf2...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Hi. On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 02:12:48 +1200 Chris Bannister cbannis...@slingshot.co.nz wrote: You mean systemd should shoulder some of the kernel's work? A database of conflicting processes is a half-measure. Moreover, an existing implementation of RDBMS older than systemd such as Postgres is surely a no-go :) You see, current Linux kernel's codebase is old, it can be traced back to 1991. Moreover, current kernel pays little attention to Modern FreeDesktop Standards™ (for example, kdbus). And, current kernel's upstream cannot be considered that friendly to systemd. To work the way it was intended - systemd upstream needs to implement their own kernel (aka kerneld) and deprecate current one. This approach grants virtually limitless possibilities. For example, the problem of conflicting processes can be eliminated by blacklisting said processes in the kerneld, whereas blacklist would be transferred by kdbus to the current kerneld instance directly from the https://cloud.redhat.com :) Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140815232740.e6a4d4464ebb985255a87...@gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 8/14/14, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: I should stop. I really have very little firm knowledge of systemd, just opinions that make sense to me. (tm) That's TM for YOU son! It's formal english thank you very much. and (tm) is a very sloppy rendition!! I don't know that we can tolerate this level of slack any more... Chris Bannista, I formally disignate you bro (that's the correct speling, since he Nuu Zoolander) as the Grammatistica Commissioner. And ChrisB, I now formally report Paul's sloppy, sloppy instance of (non-!)capitalization for your formal punishment. Thanks and have a -great- day (TM -- note the capitals), Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnssl47klfj1s1f__avzejprmwyahdokx5escu71ayjh...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:03:31PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 8/14/14, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: I should stop. I really have very little firm knowledge of systemd, just opinions that make sense to me. (tm) That's TM for YOU son! It's formal english thank you very much. and (tm) is a very sloppy rendition!! I don't know that we can tolerate this level of slack any more... Chris Bannista, I formally disignate you bro (that's the correct speling, since he Nuu Zoolander) as the Grammatistica Commissioner. And ChrisB, I now formally report Paul's sloppy, sloppy instance of (non-!)capitalization for your formal punishment. Thanks and have a -great- day (TM -- note the capitals), To clarify further, TM is as “sloppy” a shortcut as (tm). The correct rendering should be ™; that is: U+2122, “TRADE MARK SIGN”. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140814124108.ga11...@darac.org.uk
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 8/14/14, Darac Marjal mailingl...@darac.org.uk wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 10:03:31PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 8/14/14, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: I should stop. I really have very little firm knowledge of systemd, just opinions that make sense to me. (tm) That's TM for YOU son! It's formal english thank you very much. and (tm) is a very sloppy rendition!! I don't know that we can tolerate this level of slack any more... Chris Bannista, I formally disignate you bro (that's the correct speling, since he Nuu Zoolander) as the Grammatistica Commissioner. And ChrisB, I now formally report Paul's sloppy, sloppy instance of (non-!)capitalization for your formal punishment. Thanks and have a -great- day (TM -- note the capitals), To clarify further, TM is as “sloppy” a shortcut as (tm). The correct rendering should be ™; that is: U+2122, “TRADE MARK SIGN”. ChrisBanalGrammatistica, I hereby formally duly readily specifically unequivocally report myself for sloppiness, or signing and speling and grammar! Intransigence shall -not- be tolerated, Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnssfg+wpoh-yntryiox7toaurca6wudj4rpczwtcyko...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Zenaan Harkness writes: ChrisBanalGrammatistica, Grammatistica? Which language does this word belong to? Ancient Debianese, possibly pre-Vax era? -- /\ ___Ubuntu: ancient /___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_ African word //--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamicomeaning I can \/ coltivatore diretto di software not install già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso...Debian Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21484.50225.571935.947...@mail.eng.it
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: In English, both 'stop job' and 'stopped job' are an adjective modifying a noun. The noun in both cases is 'job'. 'stop job' is a noun phrase expressing a type of job, and must be some kind of geeky usage. OTOH, the noun phrase 'stopped job' is a job that is not progressing, or not running. But in this context, 'job' must itself have a geeky, technical jargon meaning. I don't understand why you've got a bee under your bonnet because of the stop job phrase! Stop in stop job isn't an adjective, it's a noun (or an attributive noun) just like office in office chair. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SxjM8=tX7qBip5qtVvWnVu5vdfWvTZ9zfTqXkUs=ym...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 12/08/14 22:23, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Tuesday 12 August 2014 17:53:19 Martin Steigerwald wrote: But if the english meaning of the words give exact this difference, so well. In my understanding there never was much of a difference between halt and poweroff. I'm not quite clear what you are saying, but if you are saying that there is not give much difference in the English meaning of the words poweroff and halt, then I must take issue with you. Halt simply means stop. Poweroff means turn the power off. A big difference in the words. Think of a car at traffic lights. You stop it: halt it. You do not power off, i.e. turn the engine off. (Unless you accidentally stall it!) Yet this is exactly what my 2 year old car does now. I halt at the lights and the engine powers off. Is this a bug? Given enough usage, a bug can become a feature. Iain Lisi
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/14/2014 10:35 AM, Tom H wrote: On Thu, Aug 14, 2014 at 1:04 AM, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: In English, both 'stop job' and 'stopped job' are an adjective modifying a noun. The noun in both cases is 'job'. 'stop job' is a noun phrase expressing a type of job, and must be some kind of geeky usage. OTOH, the noun phrase 'stopped job' is a job that is not progressing, or not running. But in this context, 'job' must itself have a geeky, technical jargon meaning. I don't understand why you've got a bee under your bonnet because of the stop job phrase! Stop in stop job isn't an adjective, it's a noun (or an attributive noun) just like office in office chair. Technically speaking, in office chair, the word office is an adjective. Most words in English can serve as multiple different parts of speech, depending on context. Nouns can be verbed, verbs can be nouned, and - as we see here - nouns can be adjectivized, trivially. That said, yes, a stop job is a job intended to stop something. (Think of the phrase a stop-job order, that is, an order to stop a job that otherwise would go forward.) The phrase is still non-obvious at a glance to the uninitiated - I had trouble figuring out that it wasn't a transcription error for stopped job, and then figuring out what it did mean, myself - but it is a reasonable one to choose from the perspective of someone who does know what's being talked about. - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJT7NuqAAoJEASpNY00KDJr9PYP/0j116FU93DILPVuF8i7rJDr tHptGTGBFJt7rtpw//igCRYeNrZTgAZ0XiZXGZKDJAWKjJQ0/40/OPeB6yS1ptbW 7xfo9w4vtmqf05qi2JXxuin54cL91iYVhuBCbc7lSIaC3q4+wvJZoJThKRBs1e0x ioRCecz+641ZFkcSv5WeGP5uYHVC/AI2t7FBAHyIdpyTEYn43bHfDhqNP0iMCCi8 15InRQolVuoMzzyCb8JHnMuZBpWgk3LEBjP4qB2rNuy57ZgHAuun8GaKXfCJ1weW KCXtA+FxXQ24yXw13ZD9HB3pSTbI/y+o7Cqr5hLENYlvH5EW+jTJC6PJrC2IN3DK a1kvWLi8I/WEnexy14w2RaJQaU9rk1fwbijHGJ/sgRx83Jcs2iUaJY4+b2JpcAPC WxtXQ0Q7Yu1siMAS/U7xzWYUXRODFRGECSAXJywh7ZV0znabKhukgJq9FmmJLvq2 jFEwH1nu/qkHgAI6pXqNNjSm7Z8rTMkj8nRVBjSR7V5ftbisazjwV27Eja6tPE/I cml7sJl5RV84hs1M1GzVsYoTFL8Lqt4NpqFBzdCdvZTavz9oDnWU20HpmJNJNpMI bdxSfFFRR8fiE10gWEP0ta6NoIJBX4ZglCLg6IlPYr6RW+sf7xqZjrasEpAx/xjh IJ/5vUmEYDWrW/FKim6J =WQVw -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53ecdbab.3030...@fastmail.fm
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 2014-08-14, Iain M Conochie i...@thargoid.co.uk wrote: Yet this is exactly what my 2 year old car does now. I halt at the lights and the engine powers off. Is this a bug? Depends. Given enough usage, a bug can become a feature. Some clever folks turn bugs into features, I reckon: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/23/stop-start-engines-fuel-savings-aaa/13053447/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnlupnu3.2c0.cu...@einstein.electron.org
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a bug in the script that fails to evaluate the variable USER and therefore fails to print the name of the user (aka. owner) of the stopped job in Session 2. The wording's probably derived from the fact that it's a systemctl stop ... job that's failing. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SyvexA3X56=ZsPTjeiXmhZ6HfEiYvPeG3evR+ir=eo...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:15:22AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 8/13/14, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a That would definitely be clearer. I was interpreting it as some special systemd shutdown-ey thing which runs around trying to stop things, and that there might be various of these, and one of them has a problem. Yes, I believe this is the correct interpretation. SystemD will tell all services to stop. It will then wait until all those sevices have stopped. Some services will stop immediately, but some need a little longer to flush logs, finish servicing a request or whatever. After a period of seconds, it appears that SystemD will pop up a message to the effect of I'm still here, still responding. I'm just waiting for service X to tell me it has stopped. Given what was said earlier in the thread, I suspect this will continue for 90 seconds until it finally gives up waiting. I.e. stop job being a noun. Stop Command, perhaps? Stop-Service command would be even clearer (though that literal command doesn't exist). Perhaps a complete rewording to Still waiting for Service $FOO in Session 2 of User $USER to stop would be clearest. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 20140813_1033+0100, Darac Marjal wrote: On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 11:15:22AM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote: On 8/13/14, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a That would definitely be clearer. I was interpreting it as some special systemd shutdown-ey thing which runs around trying to stop things, and that there might be various of these, and one of them has a problem. Yes, I believe this is the correct interpretation. SystemD will tell all services to stop. It will then wait until all those sevices have stopped. Some services will stop immediately, but some need a little longer to flush logs, finish servicing a request or whatever. After a period of seconds, it appears that SystemD will pop up a message to the effect of I'm still here, still responding. I'm just waiting for service X to tell me it has stopped. Given what was said earlier in the thread, I suspect this will continue for 90 seconds until it finally gives up waiting. I.e. stop job being a noun. In English, both 'stop job' and 'stopped job' are an adjective modifying a noun. The noun in both cases is 'job'. 'stop job' is a noun phrase expressing a type of job, and must be some kind of geeky usage. OTOH, the noun phrase 'stopped job' is a job that is not progressing, or not running. But in this context, 'job' must itself have a geeky, technical jargon meaning. I notice that you render 'systemd' as SystemD, the thought police of systemd object to the capital D. Be warned. It marks you as not one of the cognoscenti. There is a lot going on here in the use of language. Systemd people seem to have developed there own systemd jargon which sounds like UNIX jargon to the un-initiated. They may believe it is UNIX jargon, but when closely questioned I think they will reveal a belief system about UNIX that differs from the mainstream of geeky person's. To them, it is just UNIX, only better. Stop Command, perhaps? Stop-Service command would be even clearer (though that literal command doesn't exist). Perhaps a complete rewording to Still waiting for Service $FOO in Session 2 of User $USER to stop would be clearest. Seems good to me, but we don't have a clear idea of what 'Session 2' is. It might actually be a concept, which, if properly understood would be better expressed with a totally different ordering of the words. My brother Joe spent his working life at Bell Labs in the same building as the inventors of UNIX told me decades ago about the go arounds in the lunch room on topics of word choice in documantation. All of them had taken old fashioned high school English on there way to earning their engineering or science degree. They cared about being understood. He died 2yrs ago. It would have been nice to have ask him about this situation. I think he actually helped the UNIX guys by being a audience on whom to test their language. I think that all commenters would agree that the message is somewhat confusing. Something is holding up the process of shutting down some process. There needs to be a standard glossary of terms to use to express every particular that the message is attempting to communicate to the user. And, there needs to be some suggestion of what the user should do about the situation, or where in the operator's manual to read further information. It really ought to be easier to understand than the true meaning of the Book of Genesis. I should stop. I really have very little firm knowledge of systemd, just opinions that make sense to me. (tm) Best regards, -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140814050409.ga13...@big.lan.gnu
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Am 12.08.2014 16:50, schrieb Zenaan Harkness: Debian sid systemd currently fails to poweroff for me XFCE (appears to) exit, the mouse point shows for a while, then the kernel/ shutdown log appears. The last message is: A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. Have you waited at least 90 secs, which is the default timeout? -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Zenaan Harkness wrote: Debian sid systemd currently fails to poweroff for me XFCE (appears to) exit, the mouse point shows for a while, then the kernel/ shutdown log appears. The last message is: A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. Requires hard powercycle to poweroff. How might I debug this? Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lsdb4a$6jv$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Wed, 13 Aug 2014 00:50:31 +1000 Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. You're a lucky guy: I don't have even one asterisk (only a white underscore and a blinking cursor - on a laptop). But I'm not that sure it is tied to systemd because on my spare system (also sid, but the bare minimum to troubleshoot main system, just in case…), the shutdown works like a charm. -- guend people criticize windoz… guend but since I have my new computer, I have had no problems with it kayoch but didn't you just buy a Mac? guend yes, so what? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Am 12.08.2014 17:16, schrieb Hugo Vanwoerkom: Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. Well, yeah. halt is not supposed to power off your system. But that is most likely not the issue Zenaan is having -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:16:27AM -0500, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: Zenaan Harkness wrote: Debian sid systemd currently fails to poweroff for me XFCE (appears to) exit, the mouse point shows for a while, then the kernel/ shutdown log appears. The last message is: A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. Requires hard powercycle to poweroff. How might I debug this? Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. That's a totally different issue, though. With systemd both 'halt' and 'poweroff' should run through the init sequence (stop all services, send TERM to all processes, send KILL to all processes). 'halt' then stops at this point - the only thing left running is then the kernel (there's a certain pattern of work that involves running a machine like this for a firewall. All the rules are loaded into the kernel and then the machine is halted. The kernel can still process packets happily, but there are no user space processes which can alter/interfere). What Zenaan is talking about is systemd asking a service to stop and it taking too long to do so (perhaps it never will, perhaps it just needs a long time) Hugo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/lsdb4a$6jv$1...@ger.gmane.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom hvw59...@care2.com wrote: Zenaan Harkness wrote: Debian sid systemd currently fails to poweroff for me XFCE (appears to) exit, the mouse point shows for a while, then the kernel/ shutdown log appears. The last message is: A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. Requires hard powercycle to poweroff. How might I debug this? Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. I think this behaviour has changed from pre-systemd era. At halt/poweroff/reboot manpage : DESCRIPTION halt, poweroff, reboot may be used to halt, power-off or reboot the machine. I think it should be better explain what is exactly halt and which is the difference with poweroff As I understand, power off is like you press the power button some seconds. Halt (as current behaviour) is stop all process but pid 1 There is the -p switch to halt, or the --halt switch to poweroff, so halt can power off the machine or power off can stop all process in an ordered way Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAL5yMZS_D68vLw9KZaZgbRbMXA0C_r0iHcdSh6e=at-hxrv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
Am Dienstag, 12. August 2014, 17:48:10 schrieb Michael Biebl: Am 12.08.2014 17:16, schrieb Hugo Vanwoerkom: Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. Well, yeah. halt is not supposed to power off your system. Interestingly in the last ten years I have used halt exactly to power off a machine, when not using a desktop mechanism. On all systems with working ACPI I tried this on it did so. On those where ACPI is broken, it sometimes did not power off the machine. merkaba:~ ls -l /sbin/halt -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 18776 Aug 3 21:01 /sbin/halt merkaba:~ ls -l /sbin/poweroff lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Aug 3 21:01 /sbin/poweroff - halt So it differentiates behavior on command name? The manpage for halt is more than unclear on the exact semantics. I´d prefer clear commands with clear definitions of their behavior instead of guess work – will it call shutdown? or not. I like System Commands in systemctl manpage regarding this. Yet also this is just saying halt or power off. But if the english meaning of the words give exact this difference, so well. In my understanding there never was much of a difference between halt and poweroff. -- Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: Debian sid systemd currently fails to poweroff for me XFCE (appears to) exit, the mouse point shows for a while, then the kernel/ shutdown log appears. The last message is: A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. Requires hard powercycle to poweroff. How might I debug this? https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/07/msg01108.html I've been assuming that the Debian maintainers had backported the fix to (1) in the link above, but perhaps not. I haven't experienced this though and you seem to be the first to report this on the list in spite of many seemingly using systemd in testing and unstable, willingly or not. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAOdo=SwZ5HrXj8JdgJGbJPcjjHk5nKRjp6rAmdi4gZzL3=i...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a bug in the script that fails to evaluate the variable USER and therefore fails to print the name of the user (aka. owner) of the stopped job in Session 2. Did OP attempted to connect to Session 2 and terminate the job there? Does the message really keep the system from executing poweroff? Or, does it just introduce a delay long enough for the user who is requesting the poweroff to reconsider and abort his request? What did the OP actually do that he hoped would cause a poweroff? i.e. what did he type? or button did he click? In a better formulated message, there should be a comma ',' between 'user' and '$USER'. Thus if the USER of Session 2 is Joe, the message should read (adding a full stop at the end): A stopped job is running for Session 2 of user, Joe. But even this is poorly worded. A job that is both running, and stopped is a goofy idea, as well as somewhat verbose. Maybe it should be: A stopped job exists for Session 2 of user, Joe. I'm assuming that it is OK to assume that the user who did whatever made his computer spit out this message understands what a stopped job is, but I'm unaware of any Debian manual of style for error messages as newspapers have manuals of style for news item they print. Is there one? If so, it should give advice on the use of 'for' and 'of' in this context. OTOH, maybe I misunderstand the situation. HTH On 20140812_1804+0200, Javier Barroso wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom hvw59...@care2.com wrote: Zenaan Harkness wrote: Debian sid systemd currently fails to poweroff for me XFCE (appears to) exit, the mouse point shows for a while, then the kernel/ shutdown log appears. The last message is: A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. Requires hard powercycle to poweroff. How might I debug this? Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. I think this behaviour has changed from pre-systemd era. At halt/poweroff/reboot manpage : DESCRIPTION halt, poweroff, reboot may be used to halt, power-off or reboot the machine. I think it should be better explain what is exactly halt and which is the difference with poweroff As I understand, power off is like you press the power button some seconds. Halt (as current behaviour) is stop all process but pid 1 There is the -p switch to halt, or the --halt switch to poweroff, so halt can power off the machine or power off can stop all process in an ordered way Regards, -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAL5yMZS_D68vLw9KZaZgbRbMXA0C_r0iHcdSh6e=at-hxrv...@mail.gmail.com -- Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140812185112.ga24...@big.lan.gnu
[OT] on wording of computer messages [was: Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER]
On Ma, 12 aug 14, 12:51:12, Paul E Condon wrote: I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a ... In a better formulated message, there should be a comma ',' between 'user' and '$USER'. Thus if the USER of Session 2 is Joe, the message should read (adding a full stop at the end): A stopped job is running for Session 2 of user, Joe. But even this is poorly worded. A job that is both running, and stopped is a goofy idea, as well as somewhat verbose. Maybe it should be: A stopped job exists for Session 2 of user, Joe. As a non-native speaker of English I understood the message as being about a job that tries to stop something, hence a stop job. Also, the comma definitely feels wrong. If anything that I'd rather put a colon, but it's still quite understandable for me like it is. Kind regards, Andrei P.S. CC and Reply-to: -offtopic as this is not very relevant to Debian -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On Tuesday 12 August 2014 17:53:19 Martin Steigerwald wrote: But if the english meaning of the words give exact this difference, so well. In my understanding there never was much of a difference between halt and poweroff. I'm not quite clear what you are saying, but if you are saying that there is not give much difference in the English meaning of the words poweroff and halt, then I must take issue with you. Halt simply means stop. Poweroff means turn the power off. A big difference in the words. Think of a car at traffic lights. You stop it: halt it. You do not power off, i.e. turn the engine off. (Unless you accidentally stall it!) Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140813.14258.lisi.re...@gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 8/13/14, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Zenaan Harkness z...@freedbms.net wrote: Debian sid systemd currently fails to poweroff for me XFCE (appears to) exit, the mouse point shows for a while, then the kernel/ shutdown log appears. The last message is: A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left edge in an ascii wait for me animation. Requires hard powercycle to poweroff. How might I debug this? https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/07/msg01108.html I've been assuming that the Debian maintainers had backported the fix to (1) in the link above, but perhaps not. I haven't experienced this though and you seem to be the first to report this on the list in spite of many seemingly using systemd in testing and unstable, willingly or not. For me, it seemed to start happening after a sid update a week or may be two ago. That's not useful for any pinpointing, but my sid update from yesterday did not relieve the issue. On 8/13/14, Javier Barroso javibarr...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Hugo Vanwoerkom hvw59...@care2.com wrote: Right. Debian Sid. 'halt' does not poweroff with systemd. I think this behaviour has changed from pre-systemd era. For the record, I am using XFCE's Shutdown button (near the logout, sleep etc buttons). Also, I came across the halt/poweroff thing quite a while back when others did too, so when from cmd line I do use sudo poweroff now, rather than halt. I too used to always use halt command. But not any more :) But in this instance, I'm trying to shutdown from XFCE standard gui. Thanks, Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsse8b4hnsmyqntwnqcmfbh6svhnnrbs4gpaww30fvf...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 8/13/14, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
The last message is:
A stop job is running for Session 2 of user me
Red asterisks (up to 3) appear to oscillate at left
edge in an ascii wait for me animation.
eye of cylon (thanks to who mentioned that)
Have you waited at least 90 secs, which is the default timeout?
No, I shall make sure I do, next time I reboot.
But you know what my immediate next question would
then be regardless: how can I stop the 90s from occurring?
I tried CTRL-C, that did not work.
I tried CTRL-ALT-F2, and that was just a blank screen (although again,
perhaps I didn't wait long enough - I shall do so next time, to make
sure, I thought I did and that consoles were no longer starting, but
I'll wait a good minute or two next time).
Also for the record I tried these things before starting this thread:
0) apt-get dist-upgrade
1) Reboot, then log in at console, then sudo poweroff.
This 'worked'.
2) Reboot, console log in, then startx - actually this function 'se'
I put into my env, pursuant to help from helpful people on this list a
while back:
se=() {
local tty_num=$(tty | grep -oE '[0-9]+$');
startx -- -logverbose 7 vt$tty_num /var/tmp/my_xorg.log;
exit
}
and then XFCE gui 'logout'.
This worked, now back at console login prompt, log in, sudo poweroff.
This worked.
3) Finally, similar to 2), but XFCE gui 'poweroff' (instead of logout).
This worked.
So it seems there's something during my sessions which is failing to
stop properly when shutting down.
I really only run xterms, firefox and occasionally vlc, and sometimes
suspend (not hibernate).
I guess I should see if startx (xfce), suspend, unsuspend, poweroff
produces the problem.
Will get back to the list next time I reboot.
Thanks,
Zenaan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
https://lists.debian.org/CAOsGNSRn0Cq8qGPPPDvXFTrO3=igaj93_3riobled3frfd7...@mail.gmail.com
Re: systemd fails to poweroff - A stop job is running for Session 2 of user $USER
On 8/13/14, Paul E Condon pecon...@mesanetworks.net wrote: I interpret the quoted string in the Subject: header as being flawed use of English language. 'stop' should be 'stopped'. And, there is a That would definitely be clearer. I was interpreting it as some special systemd shutdown-ey thing which runs around trying to stop things, and that there might be various of these, and one of them has a problem. I.e. stop job being a noun. But your suggestion sounds more intuitive. All just guesses to me. bug in the script that fails to evaluate the variable USER and therefore fails to print the name of the user (aka. owner) of the stopped job in Session 2. The systemd message actually has my username in that message, I changed it to $USER. Sorry for any confusion there. Did OP attempted to connect to Session 2 and terminate the job there? I'm not sure on what a systemd session is. I know Ctrl-Alt-2 to go to console 2, but that was just blank. Does the message really keep the system from executing poweroff? Or, does it just introduce a delay long enough for the user who is requesting the poweroff to reconsider and abort his request? Could be. As I mentioned elsewhere, I'll wait a good 2 minutes before hard-reset. What did the OP actually do that he hoped would cause a poweroff? i.e. what did he type? or button did he click? Now clarified elsewhere. Again, apologies for not providing the full details earlier. In a better formulated message, there should be a comma ',' between 'user' and '$USER'. Thus if the USER of Session 2 is Joe, the message should read (adding a full stop at the end): A stopped job is running for Session 2 of user, Joe. But even this is poorly worded. A job that is both running, and stopped is a goofy idea, as well as somewhat verbose. Maybe it should be: A stopped job exists for Session 2 of user, Joe. I agree. Perhaps stop job really is a noun, and the message is nice and concise? In that case, we need to find out what a stop job is. I'm assuming that it is OK to assume that the user who did whatever made his computer spit out this message understands what a stopped job is, but If it is indeed a stopped job, I do not know what job it might be. I generally don't background stuff (I do sometimes, but usually only temporarily, before fging the job. I have not been able yet to isolate the problem. I'm unaware of any Debian manual of style for error messages as newspapers have manuals of style for news item they print. Is there one? If so, it should give advice on the use of 'for' and 'of' in this context. OTOH, maybe I misunderstand the situation. HTH Thank you. Let's see what we find... Zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/caosgnsr2gzx-gc6vuwr9zsnzrditmgnqifdem8g_gli5djq...@mail.gmail.com
