Hi,
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:59:14PM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> What do you think?
No comments at all? I realize, that this is not a topic that is relevant
for most people. But maybe I could get some feedback if anything like this
has a chance to be merged at all, or if I should work on a
hi,
From: Reindl Harald , 05 Oct 2011 12:32:00 +0200
>>> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-afpd.service
>>> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-cnid.service
>>> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-atalk.service
> there are a lot of manuals but the most relevant in my opinion are
> http://0pointer.de/public/systemd-
Am 12.10.2011 15:35, schrieb HAT:
hi,
From: Reindl Harald , 05 Oct 2011 12:32:00 +0200
>>> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-afpd.service
>>> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-cnid.service
>>> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-atalk.service
> there are a lot of manuals but the most relevant in my opinion ar
Thanks to Michal's observation that swapoff failed we have now found the root
cause.
swapoff is called while all our production processes are still running.
We would have expected systemd to turn off swap after stopping most if not
all processes and thus freeing up as much memory as possible. sw
On 10/12/2011 03:46 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
Thanks to Michal's observation that swapoff failed we have now found the
root cause.
swapoff is called while all our production processes are still running.
We would have expected systemd to turn off swap after stopping most if not
all processes and th
Am 12.10.2011 15:57, schrieb Frank Lahm:
> 2011/10/12 Reindl Harald :
>> Am 12.10.2011 15:35, schrieb HAT:
>> From: Reindl Harald , 05 Oct 2011 12:32:00 +0200
>>
> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-afpd.service
> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-cnid.service
> /lib/systemd/system/netatalk-atal
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 15:27:10 Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 03:46 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
> > Thanks to Michal's observation that swapoff failed we have now found the
> > root cause.
> >
> > swapoff is called while all our production processes are still running.
> >
> > We would have
On 10/12/2011 04:54 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
What dependency is supposed to cause the swapoff to be after the production
processes are stopped?
The units' ordering should be something like this:
*.swap Before swap.target Before sysinit.target Before basic.target
Before production.service
This o
2011/10/12 Reindl Harald :
> Am 12.10.2011 15:35, schrieb HAT:
> From: Reindl Harald , 05 Oct 2011 12:32:00 +0200
>
/lib/systemd/system/netatalk-afpd.service
/lib/systemd/system/netatalk-cnid.service
/lib/systemd/system/netatalk-atalk.service
>
>> there are a lot of manuals but the m
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 15:12, Michael Olbrich wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 06:59:14PM +0200, Michael Olbrich wrote:
>> What do you think?
>
> No comments at all? I realize, that this is not a topic that is relevant
> for most people. But maybe I could get some feedback if anything like this
>
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 16:42:38 Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 10/12/2011 04:54 PM, Barry Scott wrote:
> > What dependency is supposed to cause the swapoff to be after the production
> > processes are stopped?
>
> The units' ordering should be something like this:
>
> *.swap Before swap.target
11 matches
Mail list logo
