Re: [systemd-devel] umounting FS happens to be at the same time as shutting down services
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Lennart Poetteringwrote: > On Sun, 22.11.15 15:26, Francis Moreau (francis.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> While rebooting, It seems to me that shutting down services while >> unmounting some FS at the same time in an unordered fashion is not a >> good idea since unmounting a FS can happen before a service using this >> FS is stopped. >> >> Is this expected ? > > No, and it's not really what happends. Mounts from /etc/fstab are > usually ordered with a Before= depdendency against local-fs.target, > which is ordered Before= basic.target, which is the target that normal > services are ordered After=. Hence, at startup you get the strict > order: > >Mounts from /etc/fstab → local-fs.target → basic.target → normal services > > Now, in systemd the shutdown order is always the strict reverse of the > start-up order, hence this results in this shutdown order: > >normal services → basic.target → local-fs.target → Mounts from /etc/fstab > > Thus, file systems are unmounted only *after* normal services have been > terminated. > > Now, there are some services that set DefaultDependencies=no, and some > mount units too. For those these automatic dependencies are not in > effect, and they basically explicitly ask for the right to be ordered > manually against whatever they want to be ordered against, and thus > possibly are started or stopped in parallel. However, that's explicit > configuration that way, and the exception. > Thank you very much for your detailed answer, it's clear now. -- Francis ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] umounting FS happens to be at the same time as shutting down services
Am 22.11.2015 um 15:26 schrieb Francis Moreau: While rebooting, It seems to me that shutting down services while unmounting some FS at the same time in an unordered fashion is not a good idea since unmounting a FS can happen before a service using this FS is stopped i don't think that's true because systemd stops services and targets in the reverse order of boot and tries to do as much as possible in parallel but *not* unordered signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
[systemd-devel] umounting FS happens to be at the same time as shutting down services
Hi, While rebooting, It seems to me that shutting down services while unmounting some FS at the same time in an unordered fashion is not a good idea since unmounting a FS can happen before a service using this FS is stopped. Is this expected ? Thanks. -- Francis ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] umounting FS happens to be at the same time as shutting down services
On Sun, 22.11.15 15:26, Francis Moreau (francis.m...@gmail.com) wrote: > Hi, > > While rebooting, It seems to me that shutting down services while > unmounting some FS at the same time in an unordered fashion is not a > good idea since unmounting a FS can happen before a service using this > FS is stopped. > > Is this expected ? No, and it's not really what happends. Mounts from /etc/fstab are usually ordered with a Before= depdendency against local-fs.target, which is ordered Before= basic.target, which is the target that normal services are ordered After=. Hence, at startup you get the strict order: Mounts from /etc/fstab → local-fs.target → basic.target → normal services Now, in systemd the shutdown order is always the strict reverse of the start-up order, hence this results in this shutdown order: normal services → basic.target → local-fs.target → Mounts from /etc/fstab Thus, file systems are unmounted only *after* normal services have been terminated. Now, there are some services that set DefaultDependencies=no, and some mount units too. For those these automatic dependencies are not in effect, and they basically explicitly ask for the right to be ordered manually against whatever they want to be ordered against, and thus possibly are started or stopped in parallel. However, that's explicit configuration that way, and the exception. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel