Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:53:46PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 06.11.14 14:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > On Thu, 06.11.14 12:45, Patrick Häcker (pa...@web.de) wrote: > > > > > > > > > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > > > > > > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird > > > > > > to > > > > > > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > > > > > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > > > > > things are doing? > > > > At least unattended-upgrades from Debian/Ubuntu/... can be configured > > > > to > > > > install updates on shutdown (without any special mode or something). > > > > And, > > > > yes, this can run for more than 30 minutes, which I could already > > > > observe in > > > > its default mode (installing during normal system activities), so I see > > > > no > > > > reason why this should not happen when configured to install during > > > > shutdown. > > > > The reason is, that unattended-upgrades can basically update the whole > > > > distribution to the next version, which naturally can take a lot of > > > > time. > > > > > > > > It's questionable if this is a sane setup, but I can think of setups > > > > where > > > > this might be useful, e.g. having two identically configured servers > > > > for > > > > redundancy reasons where one server would be enough. Then it might make > > > > sense > > > > to update one system during shutdown while the other one takes over. > > > > This has > > > > the advantage, that normally running servers either have the old or the > > > > new > > > > state, but never some intermediate state during the update. The > > > > shutdown time > > > > does not really matter in this case and a watchdog killing the system > > > > wouldn't be welcome. But all in all this seems like an exotic use > > > > case. > > > > > > Is "unattended-upgrades" a package of its own? If so, I'd probably ask > > > the packagers to include drop-ins for reboot.target to override the > > > timeout. That way, as soon as you install it the shutdown timeouts are > > > disabled. > > > > That is suboptimal. There really should be a way to this dynamically, like > > saying: > > I'm a log-running job, I need more time, but everything is still fine. This > > type of status should require periodical pings, watchdog style. Let's say > > that > > the backup job run during shutdown hangs because there's no network, we want > > to shutdown at some point anyway. > > So, we always had per-unit timeouts in place, and they are opt-out > (with the exception of Type=oneshot services where they are > opt-in). Hence adding a second level of opt-out timeouts doesn't > sound particularly attractive to me. Agreed. > The reason I added the system-wide startup/shutdown timeouts was > really to be a safety net, so that the individual per-unit timeouts > and the opted-out exceptions don't add up beyond bounds. I guess that this is part of the issue: it is hard to define what "without bounds" means. A fsck, selinux relabel, package installation and probably many other things are effectively unbounded. And they might happen together at the same boot. So any kind of fixed limit is unlikely to work in the general case. [snip Yoga case] Sure, it solves this specific problem, but it causes significant problems in other configurations. It seems that we're trying to solve the problem in the wrong place. Even with the current JobTimeout configured for basic.target there's a big window of opportunity for the system to hang before systemd-logind.service is started. systemd-logind.service has After=nss-user-lookup.target, and I can image things going wrong there, especially with custom configurations. It would be nice if the guard we put in place would cover this too. > Now, the question is what we can do now about this: > > a) we could move logind into early boot. This has multiple problems >though: it would need to track system state as gettys on other ttys >should only be started in multi-user mode, not in early boot. Also, >the behaviour would probably not be ideal: i think it would be >preferable if the system shuts down rather then suspend if we hang >during boot. > > b) specifically do something about LUKS prompt timeouts: when a very >long timeout is hit for essential devices we could simply turn off >the machine again. This would fix my immediate problem, but I am >not sure I like it too much, I think other hangs should really be >covered too... > > c) we can come up with a scheme that explicitly excludes fsck, selinux >relabel and so on from the overall-timeout. Sounds messy and >non-obvious given that they all have individual timeouts >anyway... Two layers of opting out of timeouts sounds suspicious? No go
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, 06.11.14 14:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > On Thu, 06.11.14 12:45, Patrick Häcker (pa...@web.de) wrote: > > > > > > > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > > > > > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to > > > > > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > > > > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > > > > things are doing? > > > At least unattended-upgrades from Debian/Ubuntu/... can be configured to > > > install updates on shutdown (without any special mode or something). And, > > > yes, this can run for more than 30 minutes, which I could already observe > > > in > > > its default mode (installing during normal system activities), so I see > > > no > > > reason why this should not happen when configured to install during > > > shutdown. > > > The reason is, that unattended-upgrades can basically update the whole > > > distribution to the next version, which naturally can take a lot of time. > > > > > > It's questionable if this is a sane setup, but I can think of setups > > > where > > > this might be useful, e.g. having two identically configured servers for > > > redundancy reasons where one server would be enough. Then it might make > > > sense > > > to update one system during shutdown while the other one takes over. This > > > has > > > the advantage, that normally running servers either have the old or the > > > new > > > state, but never some intermediate state during the update. The shutdown > > > time > > > does not really matter in this case and a watchdog killing the system > > > wouldn't be welcome. But all in all this seems like an exotic use > > > case. > > > > Is "unattended-upgrades" a package of its own? If so, I'd probably ask > > the packagers to include drop-ins for reboot.target to override the > > timeout. That way, as soon as you install it the shutdown timeouts are > > disabled. > > That is suboptimal. There really should be a way to this dynamically, like > saying: > I'm a log-running job, I need more time, but everything is still fine. This > type of status should require periodical pings, watchdog style. Let's say that > the backup job run during shutdown hangs because there's no network, we want > to shutdown at some point anyway. So, we always had per-unit timeouts in place, and they are opt-out (with the exception of Type=oneshot services where they are opt-in). Hence adding a second level of opt-out timeouts doesn't sound particularly attractive to me. The reason I added the system-wide startup/shutdown timeouts was really to be a safety net, so that the individual per-unit timeouts and the opted-out exceptions don't add up beyond bounds. The specific usecase I had for this (beyond the obvious one in embedded/HA setups) was my Lenovo Yoga laptop. It has the power button on the outside, that is reachable even when the laptop is closed (this is due the fact that it is convertible into tablet mode, where the button needs to stay accessible). Now, if the system is suspended, and the lid closed, and the power button is accidentally hit because the laptop was stuffed in a backpack, then since a couple of versions ago is not a problem: after a short while the system will suspend again. However, if the machine is powered off with the lid closed, and the power-button is hit the machine powers up currently, then boots up until the LUKS prompt is hit and then just hangs there, forever, heating up my backpack, so then when I finally unpack it the battery is completely empty. I figure this is not only an issue with laptops like the Yoga but in general with all kinds of devices. Now, the question is what we can do now about this: a) we could move logind into early boot. This has multiple problems though: it would need to track system state as gettys on other ttys should only be started in multi-user mode, not in early boot. Also, the behaviour would probably not be ideal: i think it would be preferable if the system shuts down rather then suspend if we hang during boot. b) specifically do something about LUKS prompt timeouts: when a very long timeout is hit for essential devices we could simply turn off the machine again. This would fix my immediate problem, but I am not sure I like it too much, I think other hangs should really be covered too... c) we can come up with a scheme that explicitly excludes fsck, selinux relabel and so on from the overall-timeout. Sounds messy and non-obvious given that they all have individual timeouts anyway... Two layers of opting out of timeouts sounds suspicious? Any other ideas? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedeskto
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, 06.11.14 16:59, Colin Guthrie (gm...@colin.guthr.ie) wrote: > Simon McVittie wrote on 06/11/14 15:21: > > On 06/11/14 14:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >> > What matters is how it is all arranged: > >> > > >> > - if there's a job that does stuff, and then calls reboot or shutdown > >> > - a hook into the shutdown or reboot target does some work > > unattended-upgrades is currently the latter: the user shuts down (or is > > reminded to shut down by an update notification), and > > unattended-upgrades runs as a side-effect. > > > > This is an optional (non-default) configuration of an optional package, > > not core Debian/Ubuntu functionality; so it doesn't necessarily have to > > be like this forever, it could be modified to tell systemd "I'm still > > shutting down, continue to wait" periodically, it could be modified to > > use "reboot into a special mode, install, then reboot again" logic under > > systemd if that's something you already have, and, worst-case, it could > > install a drop-in to override the timeout. > > Was there not talk of teaching the sd-notify protocol the ability to > tell systemd that "I'm still alive and doing stuff - so please don't > kill me"? That exists since quite some time. It's the WATCHDOG= field in sd_notify() Not sure if this is really useful here though... Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 03:02:49PM +0100, Patrick Häcker wrote: > That should be possible. Currently the package contains > /lib/systemd/system/unattended-upgrades.service which contains: > > [Unit] > > Description=Unattended Upgrades > > DefaultDependencies=no > > Before=shutdown.target reboot.target halt.target > > Documentation=man:unattended-upgrade(8) > > > > [Service] > > Type=oneshot > > ExecStart=/usr/share/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrade-shutdown > > > > [Install] > > WantedBy=shutdown.target > > Only the maintainer Michael Vogt can decide if he wants to go in that > direction, thus I added him as CC. > > @Michael Vogt: > The discussion is about adding a watchdog to systemd to power down the system > if the shutdown takes longer than some time (i.e. 30 minutes). The question > was how to avoid killing unattended-upgrade during a longer upgrade if it is > configured to update the packages at shutdown. Systemd has to provide a mechanism, but how it is to be implemented is our problem. I don't think that this is a question for maintainers of other packages to answer. > On Thursday, 6. November 2014, 14:28:12 Lennart Poettering wrote: > > If so, I'd probably ask the packagers to include drop-ins for > > reboot.target to override the timeout. That way, as soon as you install > > it the shutdown timeouts are disabled. That's not nice. Installed but unused should not matter. I think we should be asking a different question: does the upgrade process currently run a a job after shutdown.target or reboot.target is scheduled? Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thursday, 6. November 2014, 14:28:12 Lennart Poettering wrote: > Is "unattended-upgrades" a package of its own? Yes, it's a separate package (although it's obviously closely coupled with the apt package manager). > If so, I'd probably ask the packagers to include drop-ins for > reboot.target to override the timeout. That way, as soon as you install > it the shutdown timeouts are disabled. That should be possible. Currently the package contains /lib/systemd/system/unattended-upgrades.service which contains: > [Unit] > Description=Unattended Upgrades > DefaultDependencies=no > Before=shutdown.target reboot.target halt.target > Documentation=man:unattended-upgrade(8) > > [Service] > Type=oneshot > ExecStart=/usr/share/unattended-upgrades/unattended-upgrade-shutdown > > [Install] > WantedBy=shutdown.target Only the maintainer Michael Vogt can decide if he wants to go in that direction, thus I added him as CC. @Michael Vogt: The discussion is about adding a watchdog to systemd to power down the system if the shutdown takes longer than some time (i.e. 30 minutes). The question was how to avoid killing unattended-upgrade during a longer upgrade if it is configured to update the packages at shutdown. Kind regards Patrick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
Simon McVittie wrote on 06/11/14 15:21: > On 06/11/14 14:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> > What matters is how it is all arranged: >> > >> > - if there's a job that does stuff, and then calls reboot or shutdown >> > - a hook into the shutdown or reboot target does some work > unattended-upgrades is currently the latter: the user shuts down (or is > reminded to shut down by an update notification), and > unattended-upgrades runs as a side-effect. > > This is an optional (non-default) configuration of an optional package, > not core Debian/Ubuntu functionality; so it doesn't necessarily have to > be like this forever, it could be modified to tell systemd "I'm still > shutting down, continue to wait" periodically, it could be modified to > use "reboot into a special mode, install, then reboot again" logic under > systemd if that's something you already have, and, worst-case, it could > install a drop-in to override the timeout. Was there not talk of teaching the sd-notify protocol the ability to tell systemd that "I'm still alive and doing stuff - so please don't kill me"? A sort of keep-alive (or keep-me-in-this-state-please) ping. Not sure if that ever came to pass but I remember seeing a discussion kicking around the list about this. Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:21:33PM +, Simon McVittie wrote: > On 06/11/14 14:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > What matters is how it is all arranged: > > > > - if there's a job that does stuff, and then calls reboot or shutdown > > - a hook into the shutdown or reboot target does some work > > unattended-upgrades is currently the latter: the user shuts down (or is > reminded to shut down by an update notification), and > unattended-upgrades runs as a side-effect. > > This is an optional (non-default) configuration of an optional package, > not core Debian/Ubuntu functionality; so it doesn't necessarily have to > be like this forever, it could be modified to tell systemd "I'm still > shutting down, continue to wait" periodically, it could be modified to > use "reboot into a special mode, install, then reboot again" logic under > systemd if that's something you already have, and, worst-case, it could > install a drop-in to override the timeout. > > The default configuration is currently to perform the upgrades in-place > and prompt the user to reboot when convenient, just like a manual > apt/zypp/etc. run would. > > I have worked on improving u-u's upgrade-during-shutdown mode for > SteamOS, where it is actively used in that mode (SteamOS doesn't use > systemd yet, as far as I know). With my patchset, it pre-downloads all > necessary packages and performs a pre-prepared transaction during > shutdown. Without my patchset, it downloads stuff during shutdown, which > seemed rather more precarious than anyone wants. Hm, so maybe I was a bit hasty with the revert. It doesn't really matter if download+updates or just updates are done during shutdown. In either case, a fixed timeout is dangerous. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On 06/11/14 14:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > What matters is how it is all arranged: > > - if there's a job that does stuff, and then calls reboot or shutdown > - a hook into the shutdown or reboot target does some work unattended-upgrades is currently the latter: the user shuts down (or is reminded to shut down by an update notification), and unattended-upgrades runs as a side-effect. This is an optional (non-default) configuration of an optional package, not core Debian/Ubuntu functionality; so it doesn't necessarily have to be like this forever, it could be modified to tell systemd "I'm still shutting down, continue to wait" periodically, it could be modified to use "reboot into a special mode, install, then reboot again" logic under systemd if that's something you already have, and, worst-case, it could install a drop-in to override the timeout. The default configuration is currently to perform the upgrades in-place and prompt the user to reboot when convenient, just like a manual apt/zypp/etc. run would. I have worked on improving u-u's upgrade-during-shutdown mode for SteamOS, where it is actively used in that mode (SteamOS doesn't use systemd yet, as far as I know). With my patchset, it pre-downloads all necessary packages and performs a pre-prepared transaction during shutdown. Without my patchset, it downloads stuff during shutdown, which seemed rather more precarious than anyone wants. S ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:12:52PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 11/06/2014 01:28 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >However, doing unattended upgrades at shutdown is not really a > >common case. > > > Well for Debian and Debian based distribution it most certainly can > be the case since it has allowed for it's update/upgrade mechanism > to be configured to install updates on shutdown. > > In Fedora we had at least couple of cases where users were doing the same. > > And if memory serves me correct with at least one case that was one > large installation in university where they had an cron job that > updated the lab computers , then shut them down at a spesific time > of day or updated them before they got shutdown > > In both cases ( cronjob, shutdown command ) I think the solution > would be to create a unit that is installed and executed before the > shutdown target. What matters is how it is all arranged: - if there's a job that does stuff, and then calls reboot or shutdown - a hook into the shutdown or reboot target does some work In the first case, things are fine. In the second, not. But it seems that only the first case is actually used. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On 11/06/2014 01:28 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: However, doing unattended upgrades at shutdown is not really a common case. Well for Debian and Debian based distribution it most certainly can be the case since it has allowed for it's update/upgrade mechanism to be configured to install updates on shutdown. In Fedora we had at least couple of cases where users were doing the same. And if memory serves me correct with at least one case that was one large installation in university where they had an cron job that updated the lab computers , then shut them down at a spesific time of day or updated them before they got shutdown In both cases ( cronjob, shutdown command ) I think the solution would be to create a unit that is installed and executed before the shutdown target. JBG ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 02:28:12PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 06.11.14 12:45, Patrick Häcker (pa...@web.de) wrote: > > > > > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > > > > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to > > > > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > > > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > > > things are doing? > > At least unattended-upgrades from Debian/Ubuntu/... can be configured to > > install updates on shutdown (without any special mode or something). And, > > yes, this can run for more than 30 minutes, which I could already observe > > in > > its default mode (installing during normal system activities), so I see no > > reason why this should not happen when configured to install during > > shutdown. > > The reason is, that unattended-upgrades can basically update the whole > > distribution to the next version, which naturally can take a lot of time. > > > > It's questionable if this is a sane setup, but I can think of setups where > > this might be useful, e.g. having two identically configured servers for > > redundancy reasons where one server would be enough. Then it might make > > sense > > to update one system during shutdown while the other one takes over. This > > has > > the advantage, that normally running servers either have the old or the new > > state, but never some intermediate state during the update. The shutdown > > time > > does not really matter in this case and a watchdog killing the system > > wouldn't be welcome. But all in all this seems like an exotic use > > case. > > Is "unattended-upgrades" a package of its own? If so, I'd probably ask > the packagers to include drop-ins for reboot.target to override the > timeout. That way, as soon as you install it the shutdown timeouts are > disabled. That is suboptimal. There really should be a way to this dynamically, like saying: I'm a log-running job, I need more time, but everything is still fine. This type of status should require periodical pings, watchdog style. Let's say that the backup job run during shutdown hangs because there's no network, we want to shutdown at some point anyway. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, 06.11.14 12:45, Patrick Häcker (pa...@web.de) wrote: > > > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > > > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to > > > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > > things are doing? > At least unattended-upgrades from Debian/Ubuntu/... can be configured to > install updates on shutdown (without any special mode or something). And, > yes, this can run for more than 30 minutes, which I could already observe in > its default mode (installing during normal system activities), so I see no > reason why this should not happen when configured to install during shutdown. > The reason is, that unattended-upgrades can basically update the whole > distribution to the next version, which naturally can take a lot of time. > > It's questionable if this is a sane setup, but I can think of setups where > this might be useful, e.g. having two identically configured servers for > redundancy reasons where one server would be enough. Then it might make sense > to update one system during shutdown while the other one takes over. This has > the advantage, that normally running servers either have the old or the new > state, but never some intermediate state during the update. The shutdown time > does not really matter in this case and a watchdog killing the system > wouldn't be welcome. But all in all this seems like an exotic use > case. Is "unattended-upgrades" a package of its own? If so, I'd probably ask the packagers to include drop-ins for reboot.target to override the timeout. That way, as soon as you install it the shutdown timeouts are disabled. I think we should find good defaults, that work for most cases, and make things robust in the common case. Now, an fsck or selinux relabel taking a long time is a pretty common case, we shouldn't break that, hence I figure turning off the boot timeout is probably a good idea. However, doing unattended upgrades at shutdown is not really a common case. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:48:23PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Thu, 06.11.14 06:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > > > On shutdown there might be other jobs, like downloading of updates > > > > for > > > > installation, and other custom jobs. It seems better to schedule an > > > > individual timeout on each one separately, when it is known what > > > > timeout is useful. > > > > > > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > > > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to > > > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > > > > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > > things are doing? > > No, they shutdown, reboot into a special mode, install, reboot again. I know that package *installation* is done after reboot. I was thinking that the *download* was done during shutdown. But it appears that the 'install and shutdown' dialog button appears only after they have been downloaded. In other words, they are downloaded while system is running. It seems that indeed there's no reason for long shutdowns right now. I reenabled the timeouts now in git. Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
> > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to > > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > things are doing? At least unattended-upgrades from Debian/Ubuntu/... can be configured to install updates on shutdown (without any special mode or something). And, yes, this can run for more than 30 minutes, which I could already observe in its default mode (installing during normal system activities), so I see no reason why this should not happen when configured to install during shutdown. The reason is, that unattended-upgrades can basically update the whole distribution to the next version, which naturally can take a lot of time. It's questionable if this is a sane setup, but I can think of setups where this might be useful, e.g. having two identically configured servers for redundancy reasons where one server would be enough. Then it might make sense to update one system during shutdown while the other one takes over. This has the advantage, that normally running servers either have the old or the new state, but never some intermediate state during the update. The shutdown time does not really matter in this case and a watchdog killing the system wouldn't be welcome. But all in all this seems like an exotic use case. Kind regards Patrick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, 06.11.14 06:52, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote: > > > On shutdown there might be other jobs, like downloading of updates for > > > installation, and other custom jobs. It seems better to schedule an > > > individual timeout on each one separately, when it is known what > > > timeout is useful. > > > > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to > > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > things are doing? No, they shutdown, reboot into a special mode, install, reboot again. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote on 06/11/14 05:52: >> > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software >> > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to >> > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. > Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y > things are doing? I thought they rebooted into a special mode and then did their upgrades and then rebooted again. I don't think the updates are actually performed *while* rebooting. But I could be wrong here as I've not looked at it too closely yet (as much as I would like to) Col -- Colin Guthrie gmane(at)colin.guthr.ie http://colin.guthr.ie/ Day Job: Tribalogic Limited http://www.tribalogic.net/ Open Source: Mageia Contributor http://www.mageia.org/ PulseAudio Hacker http://www.pulseaudio.org/ Trac Hacker http://trac.edgewall.org/ ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 03:22:09AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 05.11.14 17:46, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > (zbys...@kemper.freedesktop.org) wrote: > > Ahum. > > This needs more discussion. > > > > units: disable job timeouts > > > > For boot, we might kill fsck in the middle, with likely catastrophic > > consequences. > > This I can agree with for now. However, we really should revisit this. Yeah, that was supposed to be temporary, until we figure things out. > > On shutdown there might be other jobs, like downloading of updates for > > installation, and other custom jobs. It seems better to schedule an > > individual timeout on each one separately, when it is known what > > timeout is useful. > > However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software > around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to > me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. Isn't this what the various "download updates and reboot" gnome-y things are doing? Zbyszek ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [systemd-commits] units/basic.target units/poweroff.target units/reboot.target
On Wed, 05.11.14 17:46, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@kemper.freedesktop.org) wrote: Ahum. This needs more discussion. > > units: disable job timeouts > > For boot, we might kill fsck in the middle, with likely catastrophic > consequences. This I can agree with for now. However, we really should revisit this. > On shutdown there might be other jobs, like downloading of updates for > installation, and other custom jobs. It seems better to schedule an > individual timeout on each one separately, when it is known what > timeout is useful. However, this one appears bogus to me. Is there any such software around that really does this? And if so, this really appears weird to me to support. Delaying shutdown for more than 30min is just wrong. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
